Meanwhile, JoeHaxor is downloading.isos all day and tying up the service.
C'Mon, how stupid do you take the network admins for? What do you want to bet there is:
1. A proxy complete with ultra-restrictive firewall (except for special arrangements through business partners).
2. IP logging and abuse auto-shutdown and/or ban of network card from the service, plus possible triangulation of abusers for security.
3. Upload and download caps on the service.
4. Possible blacklisting of sites to discourage people from surfing to porn sites in a public place like an airport.
Maybe the upload and download caps will be raised on the corportate service, but I don't think there's going to be a way Joe Haxor is going to download an ISO in any amount of time he'd want to spend at an airport - and even then that kind of downloading abuse would get you red-flagged and possibly banned.
If MS is really reorganising itself around.Net, then contributing to a clone is roughly equivalent to contribuing to Wine.
I wouldn't really say Mono is a "clone". It's more like an implementation. MS releases the specs for a new software architecture and/or compliler fully expecting people to port it. Their motivations behind this are probably many, but we can only speculate. The truth is, MS could care less if people implement the spec, otherwise they wouldn't have released it.
Win32 (Wine) on the other hand is closed source. It is completely possible that MS could have another layer equivalent to Win32 on top of the.NET architecture (ie. WinNET) that people CAN'T port to because it's closed. So big deal if your programs are executable on Windows from Linux (because the Linux libraries are open and ported), you won't be able to use the closed WinNET libraries on Linux because THEY are proprietary and closed - that is, until a year or two later when someone does a Wine-like port... but we'll still be playing catch-up.
Why wouldn't you want to save the state of the whole machine when power failure is imminent?
Because that's not what he asked. He asked, and I quote:
Why can't I freeze down the process and thaw it back up at a later time? It ought to be possible to take all the connected memory pages and save them in some way, preserve file handles and pointers, and everything.
This has different implications. Let's say that you have to turn off your system to replace a noisy fan, but you have a process going that could take a few days (a render farm or cluster is place this might happen in). You'd like to pause it and then resume it once the computer is back on. In order to do that, you'd have to save EVERY piece of information associated with the running process like memory used, files, etc. THIS is what the guy is talking about, not hibernating the whole computer (which, if the computer is running many processes could be an extremely bad use of hard disk space, not to mention time consuming - time is something you don't have when running off a UPS).
Cliff's only made the situation worse by saying "Laptops have been doing this in some form for years", but really "in some form" is a generalized stretch. It seems to me that its likely that its much more complicated to save and restore one specific process than it is to save and restore all of them in one big dump back into memory when the system recovers.
This comment is far from (Score:4, Informative)... it's not even relevant. We're not talking about the whole OS hibernating, we're talking about saving the execution state of an executing process so that it can be resurrected later and continued (ie. if a reboot is necessary).
Expand that out to a small cheap widget that can be stuck to random objects to tell where the Hell they've gotten to and you may actually have a business.
I can see it now - parents attaching widgets to their children so they can track them when they go to the mall...
"Honey, I lost Jeffy in Walmart. Can you go to the car and get the GPS system?"
I believe you're wrong. My first ICQ account was 1,95X,XXX and I got it the fall of 1995. I had to stop using it because it was publicized on the 'net and I was getting a ton of ICQ spam messages. I got the second account six months afterwards.
One feature missing in MSN messenger is that I just can not change the names of the people in my contact list.
True, however the good side of their implmentation is that your name is displayed the same way on everyone else's list out there, which as a side effect allows people to put meaningful status messages in there.
I guess this was a usability thing they mulled over, and figured it would be easier to let the other person maintain their own name. It's lazy, but it keeps the logic on the client simpler.
I'm not a great programmer, but I'm good, and several companies told me that they'd be happy to make me an offer just as soon as their executives lift the hiring freeze.
I don't think we're talking about the same caliber here. Alan Cox is Alan Cox and his technical reputation preceeds him. He writes code that is publicly scrutinized down to the last byte.
It may be arrogant of *me* to assume that hiring freezes don't apply to him, but I don't think I'm far off. People make exceptions for exceptional people.
Did anyone notice that one of those products did really change to the worse (besides the ads in ICQ, which is ok I guess because they are not that annoying)?
As off-topic as it is, I disagree with this point.
I used ICQ for 6 years since 1995 (#3876070) and convinced a large portion of my friends to start using it over the years. I now recommend MSN. Why?
1. ICQ is bloated beyond imagination - and I'm not just talking memory footprint. MSN gets the same stuff done and is much smaller. Also, while IM programs actually REDUCED their feature set, ICQ increased theirs, making their product more difficult to use.
2. MSN allows you to store your user list on the server. ICQ now allows this apparently, but it's too late. I already switched because of (1).
3. MSN shows you when the user is typing a message. This is a VERY underestimated usability feature. ICQ may or may not have this feature, moot because of (1).
4. Complicated user management. I used to lose offline messages in ICQ and get them a month later. MSN's solution? Don't allow it - send an e-mail. Simple. In MSN everything related to user management is clean, except for the fact that I can't enter an away message (though some people use the name for that).
Point is, ICQ is sluggish. From my point of view they aren't responding to the market. Not everyone has a super fast PC. Not everyone uses ICQ on the same PC all the time. Not everyone can navigate and remember 16 setup menus so they can change their default away message. If it's too hard for my friends to use, I'll use whatever my friends can, and that's MSN right now.
I'd like to see ICQ prove me wrong, but frankly they're losing the battle to keep IM users that aren't already tied to AOL.
It's okay to stand your ground Alan, but in this economy [nasdaq.com] even a kernel God may find alternative employment hard to come by.
I hardly feel as though I have to defend Alan Cox, but he's not one-dimensional. He knows much more than just the Linux kernel and as far as I can remember he didn't even work in the operating systems business before he started working for RedHat (was it telecom? I don't know for sure).
But how this post gets modded up is beyond me (and that's why I'm picking on it). It's obvious Alan is a very very good software developer. Who cares how bad the economy is, good developers can get a job anywhere.
It's the bad developers that need to worry when the economy goes sour.
Have you not noticed that on the download page for WinAmp in the table listing the 3 different versions, there is a column labeled: "Built in Ads". Although all three versions currently show NONE, I wouldn't count on it always being that way.
Nullsoft does that to compare against other players that might have built in ads by saying EXPLICITLY that they do not have them. This in no way implies they are going to have ads in the future.
2) Nullsoft was interviewed somewhere (sorry no URL), and they complained that they WANTED to compete against Napster, and add download plugins to winamp, but AOL forbade it.
As much as I don't like taking the side of a superpower like AOL/Time-Warner, I have to say your point is pure bunk. Nullsoft is OWNED by AOL/T-W now. No one twisted their arms and said "Take this stock and cash for Nullsoft or we'll kill your children!". No.
Nullsoft lost control of WinAmp when they sold it. That is the point of selling something, and that is what AOL/T-W was buying - control. If WinAmp is crying now because they can't 'innovate', maybe they should try buying their company/software back. If they do, I wish them luck.
Should the typical user be running a precompiled, distribution supplied kernel or a customized kernel that may offer performance advantages or may be wildly inappropriate and which creates immense tech support headaches?
Heh, I guess it depends on who you ask. Since RedHat's money making owes a large part to support fees, I'm sure they won't mind walking through custom kernel configurations at a few dollars a minute, will they?;)
I suppose this is where open source and commercial processes differ: commercial joints see support calls as 'headaches', open source joints see them as 'a source of revenue'. Who are you going to get better support from, I wonder?
I hadn't heard about the bug report problem until you brought it up, and it's frankly amazing that it hasn't been addressed in this manner already.
Actually, the bug/patch reporting problem was mentioned in a very recent article about Linux VMs. Rik van Riel complained that Linus' (rather human-based) system was prone to missing patches, no doubt because the mailing list is filled with bogus bug reports, if indeed these are the same lists. Even if they aren't the same lists, Linus would probably have to monitor both anyway.
The point is that we have clear evidence a better system is needed for bug reporting and patch submission to give the main developers some way of organising and prioritising things. Clearly a simple mailing list does not suffice when the number of people submitting gets very large. Any takers?
It could also be a discussion whether it is worth the job to develop such a tool... Or whether it would make anything better...
Whether it is worth it is irrelevant. It is being done. There are probably many open source projects that have been done and not been worth it. The learning process is educational. A lot of the time we have no way of knowing how useful a piece of software is out there and people say "Wow, I can do that??".
As for the "making things better" sentiment, it depends on how you look at it. Most hackers would say a command line is "better" for copying files, for example. But if you don't know the syntax, the easiest way is to drag the files in a UI.
I think maybe the writer of the editorial is onto something when he points out hacker elitism. So what if people can compile their own kernels? Hackers can still do it the l33t way - on the command line. Sometimes you can have your cake and hack it too.
Judging from your response, I doubt you've even USED an iMac. Regardless...
There are a LOT of people who install their own memory, or add a modem card, or add a new video card, etc. These things are just not that hard for the average person.
Define average. Please, I dare you. You mean average white middle class American families that already have computers?
Macs are usability machines. Usability machines are for people that don't WANT to take apart their computer - they'll pay someone else to do it if they want upgrades or if something goes wrong.
If it was just the Slashdot crowd, we wouldn't have have the major computer chains carrying components.
When is the last time you bought components from a major chain? Why would anyone when the small mom and pop computer stores are selling the components for 20% less. Major chains carry components to get people to buy them that don't know any better... and better yet, need them installed for them at $30/h.
Now, Apple is not 10 times the cost, like this belt (although they WOULD charge that much, if they could), but it's the same principle. They are charging a lot more money for 10% more quality.
What is 10% to you, a member of the "geek contingent" I presume, may be 100% to someone else.
Honestly, I don't know how people live with themselves recommending a Mac. I would feel totally guilty. It's OK if you want to get one for yourself, and are informed as to the huge software limitations, but to lead someone down that path is just wrong.
I am hard-pressed to see software limitations with the iMac for the average user. The average user still has Microsoft Office, e-mail applications, browsers, etc.... and in fact all of these applications are tailored to the Mac usability-consciencious crowd - even better.
Now if you need a bleeding edge PC to play the latest game, go buy one. Better yet, buy an XBox. Don't go trashing a Mac because it can't run fringe-market software. We're talking about the MASS MARKET here.
Oh, and go test drive an Apple at the nearest Best Buy for a half hour. You may be surprised what you see inside.:P
Please explain how this dongle protects Apple's interests - after all, when you've got the dongle, you plug it into a regular PC-standard monitor! It's not like the dongle ties you into Apple-brand displays. The dongle does not protect Apple's interests in any way, it's just a PITA.
I thought this was self-evident, but Apple wants to make sure that you ONLY use their own flatscreen LCD on the new iMac.
This reduces the quality control factor a LOT. Apple only has to worry about ONE video card and monitor configuration. Whereas PC manufacturers have to worry about an infinite number of possiblities. Think of the savings in support costs alone.
The thing about Apple is that they don't make computers for "the rest of us", they make computers for the 3% of the population who like shopping at boutiques.
... and people who don't need to update their hardware every year, which is almost everyone that DOESN'T read this web site.
Geez, don't you guys have relatives with 5 year old computers they've never upgraded because "they don't have to"? This is the AVERAGE PC user. This is the "big" market. Not the geek market. The geek market can keep using big, clunky grey boxes for all Apple cares. The truth is that the geek market is too damn fast for Apple, and that's fine for both parties.
As for everyone else, Apples make great computers. Their design may make them boutiquish, but if you take a closer look you'll see a computer that is truly designed with the mass market in mind.
It's too bad the geeks are still advising their relatives to get ugly grey boxes when they could be getting a much more user-friendly experience.
Sometimes a geek has to put himself in computer-ignorant shoes!
I'm all for design improvements, but there is no point being proprietary just for the sake of being different.
Ahh, but there is. It may not be a survival reason but there is one nontheless: protecting your interests.
Take the IBM-cloning of the 80's and 90's. Apple didn't dive into that because they wanted Apple to mean a level of quality that THEY controlled. It may have led to smaller market share, but to a company like Apple that was secondary to protecting the Apple image and level of design quality they now enjoy as REPUTATION in the industry.
I don't think it's hard to see that they wouldn't have this luxury had they opened up some Apple-cloning licensing scheme like IBM did.
Oh, and anther thing: where is the IBM PC today? Dead.
What is the LCD drops a pixel or two? You're stuck with a proprietary solution that's loaded with all this great hardware, and you have to either hook up an external monitor, which would ruin the reason you got this thing in the first place, or get an authorized Mac replacement, which would probably be 3/4 of the original price.
I can see your concerns, but... the monitor had to be put on some way, right? It can be taken off and replaced the same way. You'll just have to take it to someone who can do it, just like getting your TV fixed.
I know this means less control over our own systems, but the Mac crowd is used to getting their whole system in one package - this isn't new AT ALL. It's the PC-clone people that like that aspect, and in terms of Apple's target market, that's a small percentage.
This is why I don't see this post as "interesting", because it's the same "PC's are better because we have more control" argument. Some people don't want control - they want a box (or dome) that sits beautifully on their desk and behaves nicely. This is the Mac market. This will always be the Mac market.
For crying out loud, PC users, GET USED TO IT.
</rant>
I may not be going "out", but I'm still going to drink for 6 or 7 hours and get completely trashed with my friends. Now this may seem immature and silly, but it's sometimes good to get that out of your system once in a while and what better night than New Years Eve!
Seriously though, some of us are just coming of horrendous exam schedules and need a good winding down before the next semester starts.
... and yes, I DO need alcohol for this. That's what it's in existence for. Well, winding down and getting nerds laid. LOL. Ok, some nerds. On occasion. Ok, rare occasion. Who? Oh, you know, my friend Joey... Joe Joe.... yeah, Joey Joe Joe. He lives in Niagra Falls.;)
AOL won't make any significant number of people move from Windows to Linux. 99% of the people on AOL are there because they don't know a lot about computers, and they don't care to.
... and this is why Linux isn't getting anywhere. People still see it as a geek OS, regardless of the significant progress Linux has made in the past year.
The Mandrake installation is just as difficult (or easy) as a Windows install. Putting AOL on top of this is just as difficult as Windows - put the CD in and press GO.
Now imagine this - when AOL sends you a CD they now send on the disk:
1. The AOL client.
2. The Netscape suite of free products.
3. And the operating system to run it - a customized AOL distro of Linux.
You don't need to buy Windows. You go out and get a computer, use the 4 disk package AOL sent you in the mail (as "junk" mail) and you have a fully functional computer in no time - and no $150 for an OS!
What AOL needs is a very simple install procedure and they are golden. I predict an AOL distro of Linux... you wait and see!
Slashdot Mirror
...but they went FC [f---edcompany.com] a few months back. Both of them had a login screen that totally fucked up my browser cache...
:)
Heh. Why bother filtering the domain bracketing when they can just go ahead and fucking swear anyway?
Meanwhile, JoeHaxor is downloading .isos all day and tying up the service.
C'Mon, how stupid do you take the network admins for? What do you want to bet there is:
1. A proxy complete with ultra-restrictive firewall (except for special arrangements through business partners).
2. IP logging and abuse auto-shutdown and/or ban of network card from the service, plus possible triangulation of abusers for security.
3. Upload and download caps on the service.
4. Possible blacklisting of sites to discourage people from surfing to porn sites in a public place like an airport.
Maybe the upload and download caps will be raised on the corportate service, but I don't think there's going to be a way Joe Haxor is going to download an ISO in any amount of time he'd want to spend at an airport - and even then that kind of downloading abuse would get you red-flagged and possibly banned.
If MS is really reorganising itself around .Net, then contributing to a clone is roughly equivalent to contribuing to Wine.
.NET architecture (ie. WinNET) that people CAN'T port to because it's closed. So big deal if your programs are executable on Windows from Linux (because the Linux libraries are open and ported), you won't be able to use the closed WinNET libraries on Linux because THEY are proprietary and closed - that is, until a year or two later when someone does a Wine-like port ... but we'll still be playing catch-up.
I wouldn't really say Mono is a "clone". It's more like an implementation. MS releases the specs for a new software architecture and/or compliler fully expecting people to port it. Their motivations behind this are probably many, but we can only speculate. The truth is, MS could care less if people implement the spec, otherwise they wouldn't have released it.
Win32 (Wine) on the other hand is closed source. It is completely possible that MS could have another layer equivalent to Win32 on top of the
Ah ha! Now THERE'S a strategy.
Because that's not what he asked. He asked, and I quote:
This has different implications. Let's say that you have to turn off your system to replace a noisy fan, but you have a process going that could take a few days (a render farm or cluster is place this might happen in). You'd like to pause it and then resume it once the computer is back on. In order to do that, you'd have to save EVERY piece of information associated with the running process like memory used, files, etc. THIS is what the guy is talking about, not hibernating the whole computer (which, if the computer is running many processes could be an extremely bad use of hard disk space, not to mention time consuming - time is something you don't have when running off a UPS).
Cliff's only made the situation worse by saying "Laptops have been doing this in some form for years", but really "in some form" is a generalized stretch. It seems to me that its likely that its much more complicated to save and restore one specific process than it is to save and restore all of them in one big dump back into memory when the system recovers.
This comment is far from (Score:4, Informative) ... it's not even relevant. We're not talking about the whole OS hibernating, we're talking about saving the execution state of an executing process so that it can be resurrected later and continued (ie. if a reboot is necessary).
Expand that out to a small cheap widget that can be stuck to random objects to tell where the Hell they've gotten to and you may actually have a business.
...
I can see it now - parents attaching widgets to their children so they can track them when they go to the mall
"Honey, I lost Jeffy in Walmart. Can you go to the car and get the GPS system?"
I believe you're wrong. My first ICQ account was 1,95X,XXX and I got it the fall of 1995. I had to stop using it because it was publicized on the 'net and I was getting a ton of ICQ spam messages. I got the second account six months afterwards.
However, I do disagree it is inconvenient.
Crap, should have used preview. My apologies.
I do agree it is inconvenient.
One feature missing in MSN messenger is that I just can not change the names of the people in my contact list.
True, however the good side of their implmentation is that your name is displayed the same way on everyone else's list out there, which as a side effect allows people to put meaningful status messages in there.
I guess this was a usability thing they mulled over, and figured it would be easier to let the other person maintain their own name. It's lazy, but it keeps the logic on the client simpler.
However, I do disagree it is inconvenient.
>>Point is, ICQ is sluggish. ;)
;)
>Don't make jokes about my nickname!
LOL! Accept my condolences.
I'm not a great programmer, but I'm good, and several companies told me that they'd be happy to make me an offer just as soon as their executives lift the hiring freeze.
I don't think we're talking about the same caliber here. Alan Cox is Alan Cox and his technical reputation preceeds him. He writes code that is publicly scrutinized down to the last byte.
It may be arrogant of *me* to assume that hiring freezes don't apply to him, but I don't think I'm far off. People make exceptions for exceptional people.
Did anyone notice that one of those products did really change to the worse (besides the ads in ICQ, which is ok I guess because they are not that annoying)?
As off-topic as it is, I disagree with this point.
I used ICQ for 6 years since 1995 (#3876070) and convinced a large portion of my friends to start using it over the years. I now recommend MSN. Why?
1. ICQ is bloated beyond imagination - and I'm not just talking memory footprint. MSN gets the same stuff done and is much smaller. Also, while IM programs actually REDUCED their feature set, ICQ increased theirs, making their product more difficult to use.
2. MSN allows you to store your user list on the server. ICQ now allows this apparently, but it's too late. I already switched because of (1).
3. MSN shows you when the user is typing a message. This is a VERY underestimated usability feature. ICQ may or may not have this feature, moot because of (1).
4. Complicated user management. I used to lose offline messages in ICQ and get them a month later. MSN's solution? Don't allow it - send an e-mail. Simple. In MSN everything related to user management is clean, except for the fact that I can't enter an away message (though some people use the name for that).
Point is, ICQ is sluggish. From my point of view they aren't responding to the market. Not everyone has a super fast PC. Not everyone uses ICQ on the same PC all the time. Not everyone can navigate and remember 16 setup menus so they can change their default away message. If it's too hard for my friends to use, I'll use whatever my friends can, and that's MSN right now.
I'd like to see ICQ prove me wrong, but frankly they're losing the battle to keep IM users that aren't already tied to AOL.
It's okay to stand your ground Alan, but in this economy [nasdaq.com] even a kernel God may find alternative employment hard to come by.
I hardly feel as though I have to defend Alan Cox, but he's not one-dimensional. He knows much more than just the Linux kernel and as far as I can remember he didn't even work in the operating systems business before he started working for RedHat (was it telecom? I don't know for sure).
But how this post gets modded up is beyond me (and that's why I'm picking on it). It's obvious Alan is a very very good software developer. Who cares how bad the economy is, good developers can get a job anywhere.
It's the bad developers that need to worry when the economy goes sour.
Have you not noticed that on the download page for WinAmp in the table listing the 3 different versions, there is a column labeled: "Built in Ads". Although all three versions currently show NONE, I wouldn't count on it always being that way.
:P
Nullsoft does that to compare against other players that might have built in ads by saying EXPLICITLY that they do not have them. This in no way implies they are going to have ads in the future.
Keep your FUD to yourself.
2) Nullsoft was interviewed somewhere (sorry no URL), and they complained that they WANTED to compete against Napster, and add download plugins to winamp, but AOL forbade it.
As much as I don't like taking the side of a superpower like AOL/Time-Warner, I have to say your point is pure bunk. Nullsoft is OWNED by AOL/T-W now. No one twisted their arms and said "Take this stock and cash for Nullsoft or we'll kill your children!". No.
Nullsoft lost control of WinAmp when they sold it. That is the point of selling something, and that is what AOL/T-W was buying - control. If WinAmp is crying now because they can't 'innovate', maybe they should try buying their company/software back. If they do, I wish them luck.
Should the typical user be running a precompiled, distribution supplied kernel or a customized kernel that may offer performance advantages or may be wildly inappropriate and which creates immense tech support headaches?
;)
Heh, I guess it depends on who you ask. Since RedHat's money making owes a large part to support fees, I'm sure they won't mind walking through custom kernel configurations at a few dollars a minute, will they?
I suppose this is where open source and commercial processes differ: commercial joints see support calls as 'headaches', open source joints see them as 'a source of revenue'. Who are you going to get better support from, I wonder?
I hadn't heard about the bug report problem until you brought it up, and it's frankly amazing that it hasn't been addressed in this manner already.
Actually, the bug/patch reporting problem was mentioned in a very recent article about Linux VMs. Rik van Riel complained that Linus' (rather human-based) system was prone to missing patches, no doubt because the mailing list is filled with bogus bug reports, if indeed these are the same lists. Even if they aren't the same lists, Linus would probably have to monitor both anyway.
The point is that we have clear evidence a better system is needed for bug reporting and patch submission to give the main developers some way of organising and prioritising things. Clearly a simple mailing list does not suffice when the number of people submitting gets very large. Any takers?
It could also be a discussion whether it is worth the job to develop such a tool... Or whether it would make anything better...
Whether it is worth it is irrelevant. It is being done. There are probably many open source projects that have been done and not been worth it. The learning process is educational. A lot of the time we have no way of knowing how useful a piece of software is out there and people say "Wow, I can do that??".
As for the "making things better" sentiment, it depends on how you look at it. Most hackers would say a command line is "better" for copying files, for example. But if you don't know the syntax, the easiest way is to drag the files in a UI.
I think maybe the writer of the editorial is onto something when he points out hacker elitism. So what if people can compile their own kernels? Hackers can still do it the l33t way - on the command line. Sometimes you can have your cake and hack it too.
Judging from your response, I doubt you've even USED an iMac. Regardless...
... and better yet, need them installed for them at $30/h.
.... and in fact all of these applications are tailored to the Mac usability-consciencious crowd - even better.
:P
There are a LOT of people who install their own memory, or add a modem card, or add a new video card, etc. These things are just not that hard for the average person.
Define average. Please, I dare you. You mean average white middle class American families that already have computers?
Macs are usability machines. Usability machines are for people that don't WANT to take apart their computer - they'll pay someone else to do it if they want upgrades or if something goes wrong.
If it was just the Slashdot crowd, we wouldn't have have the major computer chains carrying components.
When is the last time you bought components from a major chain? Why would anyone when the small mom and pop computer stores are selling the components for 20% less. Major chains carry components to get people to buy them that don't know any better
Now, Apple is not 10 times the cost, like this belt (although they WOULD charge that much, if they could), but it's the same principle. They are charging a lot more money for 10% more quality.
What is 10% to you, a member of the "geek contingent" I presume, may be 100% to someone else.
Honestly, I don't know how people live with themselves recommending a Mac. I would feel totally guilty. It's OK if you want to get one for yourself, and are informed as to the huge software limitations, but to lead someone down that path is just wrong.
I am hard-pressed to see software limitations with the iMac for the average user. The average user still has Microsoft Office, e-mail applications, browsers, etc
Now if you need a bleeding edge PC to play the latest game, go buy one. Better yet, buy an XBox. Don't go trashing a Mac because it can't run fringe-market software. We're talking about the MASS MARKET here.
Oh, and go test drive an Apple at the nearest Best Buy for a half hour. You may be surprised what you see inside.
Please explain how this dongle protects Apple's interests - after all, when you've got the dongle, you plug it into a regular PC-standard monitor! It's not like the dongle ties you into Apple-brand displays. The dongle does not protect Apple's interests in any way, it's just a PITA.
I thought this was self-evident, but Apple wants to make sure that you ONLY use their own flatscreen LCD on the new iMac.
This reduces the quality control factor a LOT. Apple only has to worry about ONE video card and monitor configuration. Whereas PC manufacturers have to worry about an infinite number of possiblities. Think of the savings in support costs alone.
THAT is protecting one's interests.
The thing about Apple is that they don't make computers for "the rest of us", they make computers for the 3% of the population who like shopping at boutiques.
... and people who don't need to update their hardware every year, which is almost everyone that DOESN'T read this web site.
Geez, don't you guys have relatives with 5 year old computers they've never upgraded because "they don't have to"? This is the AVERAGE PC user. This is the "big" market. Not the geek market. The geek market can keep using big, clunky grey boxes for all Apple cares. The truth is that the geek market is too damn fast for Apple, and that's fine for both parties.
As for everyone else, Apples make great computers. Their design may make them boutiquish, but if you take a closer look you'll see a computer that is truly designed with the mass market in mind.
It's too bad the geeks are still advising their relatives to get ugly grey boxes when they could be getting a much more user-friendly experience.
Sometimes a geek has to put himself in computer-ignorant shoes!
I'm all for design improvements, but there is no point being proprietary just for the sake of being different.
Ahh, but there is. It may not be a survival reason but there is one nontheless: protecting your interests.
Take the IBM-cloning of the 80's and 90's. Apple didn't dive into that because they wanted Apple to mean a level of quality that THEY controlled. It may have led to smaller market share, but to a company like Apple that was secondary to protecting the Apple image and level of design quality they now enjoy as REPUTATION in the industry.
I don't think it's hard to see that they wouldn't have this luxury had they opened up some Apple-cloning licensing scheme like IBM did.
Oh, and anther thing: where is the IBM PC today? Dead.
What is the LCD drops a pixel or two? You're stuck with a proprietary solution that's loaded with all this great hardware, and you have to either hook up an external monitor, which would ruin the reason you got this thing in the first place, or get an authorized Mac replacement, which would probably be 3/4 of the original price.
... the monitor had to be put on some way, right? It can be taken off and replaced the same way. You'll just have to take it to someone who can do it, just like getting your TV fixed.
I can see your concerns, but
I know this means less control over our own systems, but the Mac crowd is used to getting their whole system in one package - this isn't new AT ALL. It's the PC-clone people that like that aspect, and in terms of Apple's target market, that's a small percentage.
This is why I don't see this post as "interesting", because it's the same "PC's are better because we have more control" argument. Some people don't want control - they want a box (or dome) that sits beautifully on their desk and behaves nicely. This is the Mac market. This will always be the Mac market.
For crying out loud, PC users, GET USED TO IT.
</rant>
I may not be going "out", but I'm still going to drink for 6 or 7 hours and get completely trashed with my friends. Now this may seem immature and silly, but it's sometimes good to get that out of your system once in a while and what better night than New Years Eve!
... Joe Joe .... yeah, Joey Joe Joe. He lives in Niagra Falls. ;)
Seriously though, some of us are just coming of horrendous exam schedules and need a good winding down before the next semester starts.
... and yes, I DO need alcohol for this. That's what it's in existence for. Well, winding down and getting nerds laid. LOL. Ok, some nerds. On occasion. Ok, rare occasion. Who? Oh, you know, my friend Joey
HAVE A SAFE AND HAPPY DRUNKEN NEW YEARS EVE!
AOL won't make any significant number of people move from Windows to Linux. 99% of the people on AOL are there because they don't know a lot about computers, and they don't care to.
... you wait and see!
... and this is why Linux isn't getting anywhere. People still see it as a geek OS, regardless of the significant progress Linux has made in the past year.
The Mandrake installation is just as difficult (or easy) as a Windows install. Putting AOL on top of this is just as difficult as Windows - put the CD in and press GO.
Now imagine this - when AOL sends you a CD they now send on the disk:
1. The AOL client.
2. The Netscape suite of free products.
3. And the operating system to run it - a customized AOL distro of Linux.
You don't need to buy Windows. You go out and get a computer, use the 4 disk package AOL sent you in the mail (as "junk" mail) and you have a fully functional computer in no time - and no $150 for an OS!
What AOL needs is a very simple install procedure and they are golden. I predict an AOL distro of Linux