Adobe FrameMaker has run on more than 10 Unixes over the years, including Linux. Consider this nit picked!
Actually Frame Technology Corp. wrote Framemaker and ported it to many Linux/UNIX based OS's, Windows, and Mac OS. Once Adobe acquired Frame Technology Corp. they slowly dropped all the other versions until 2004 when they finally dropped Mac OS (who at the time comprised about half of their user base), making this product a Windows only. They basically put the whole program in the deep freeze with minimal updates to keep things working and no new features while they tried to migrate users to their home grown InDesign which was written originally for making magazines and was very unsuited to technical books (which was Framemaker's main target). In fact, they only recently started up development again (outsourced to India) when MadCap Software announced a new program called Blaze, which was billed as having every feature of Framemaker, but implemented from scratch with many new features and an order of magnitude better performance. As of 2007, they claimed to have no plans to support anything but Windows going forward.
Although that is, in fact, my opinion, I think religious scholars balk at this concept because it pigeonholes God into a smaller player in the universe.
While it is true some religious scholars balk at the idea that evolution is the means by which "God" has shaped people and animals, I do believe the majority of christian sects do espouse that as official doctrine. The reason most Americans don't voice their sect's that belief and instead will say evolution is wrong is because they have not learned the official doctrine of their church and usually have not consulted their pastor or even read their bible all the way through.
The real motivating force behind the "evolution is wrong" social phenomenon is that people perceive themselves as being threatened. They think some egghead or bureaucrat at the school board is laughing at them for going to church every sunday and they are afraid they are not as smart as that person or maybe that person is right and they are going to cease to exist when they die or even that their children are going to decide they are smarter than their parents and think them ignorant or stupid. In any case they are threatened and react with fear and anger against that threat and counter attack emotionally, with the trappings of religion to justify their reaction to themselves.
I would assert that claiming opinions about evolution are a conflict of religion and science is incorrect. This seems to be more of a conflict of science and emotional decision making, with the latter being the majority on both sides of the debate.
But there is a conflict. Religious people will always believe what their holy book says over what any scientist says regardless of the evidence provided by the scientist.
This is simply not true. Religion and science do not always conflict. A great many religious people have no official book to reference. A great many more are willing to accept the results of the scientific method, and use religion as a way to try to figure out a purpose for life as well as guide their behaviors. Strictly applying the scientific method we likely exist because of random chance and there is no reason why a person should not go on a killing spree at the local daycare center using a chainsaw. For many people religion is a way to look for "truths" that science is unlikely to ever answer.
Ultimately you have to make the choice of what takes precidence and if you pick science over religion than you're not very religious and you if you pick religion over science you're certainly not a scientist.
Or you can accept the results of the scientific method as the best way to determine how things work and look to religion to try to determine why things exist at all.
That said, I don't see why a religious person would feel obligated to not believe in evolution. There's nothing in the bible or any other holy book (to my knowledge) that says you can't nor is there any conclusive language that excludes the possibility.
I think you're making a mistake here. Most people I have talked to who claim they disbelieve evolution don't even know what the theory of evolution is. Nor have they read the religious literature pertinent to their religion. In fact, while most Americans don't believe in evolution, most of them are members of a church whose official doctrine does accept evolution... but the followers have never bothered to discover that fact. Claiming evolution is wrong is not a conflict of religion and science for the most part. It is a sociological phenomenon where people are threatened by their own perceived lack of knowledge and intelligence and respond emotionally by attacking and dismissing what they perceive as that threat. Most people don't sit down with their bible and Origin of the Species and consider their implications for one another. Most people don't ask their local pastor about the topic. Most people see that someone probably thinks they are stupid because they go to church every sunday, which threatens their ego, which evokes the emotional responses of fear and anger and leads them to lash back at whatever it was that they see as the threat, be it the evolutionary theory or science in general.
Personally, I find that when I talk to someone who espouses the opinion that evolution is nonsense, usually about ten minutes later they have changed their opinion and now believe evolution makes sense, but academics are mostly arrogant jerks who like to cause trouble.
Your fictional conversation fails in that you are mislabeling one of the people as "scientist." If someone tells you that you have to learn everything they know to be a scientist... then clearly they are not a scientist themselves, at least for this interaction. A scientist is quite simply a person who understands and applies the scientific method to determine what is most likely to be true. That's it. You don't need a PhD. You don't have to know how to use a computer. You don't need a B.S. You don't need pocket protector or a microscope. You just have to understand and apply the scientific method.
The problem that arises is if you want to disagree with the theory of evolution... you are not a scientist. This not because you don't know everything some other person does, but because you have already decided what you think is the truth instead of applying the scientific method to determine what is the most likely truth.
If you can explain the development from single-cell organism to homo sapiens to satisfaction without ever mentioning God, and then you add, as sort of an afterthought; this all happened because God wanted it so. Then "God" in your theory is superfluos[sic]: your theory *with* god doesn't explain or predict anything that your theory *without* God doesn't do equally well, so there's no reason to include him in the theory in the first place.
I'm going to have to disagree with this one(sort of). "God" is inserted into the equation because most people don't think a theory without him adequately explains the basic question "why?" To elaborate, the theories of abiogenesis and evolution are very persuasive to the average person for explaining what, where and when things happened, but the majority of people cannot accept that "random chance" is why they exist. This is probably owing to their own perspective as the center of the world and difficulty in applying cold reason to such an emotionally explosive topic. It leads them towards the conclusion that when they die, in all likelihood their consciousness ceases to exist and that concept triggers a very strong fear and anger response since it is a direct threat to every part of their psyche.
In short the theories you mention with "God" added are simply easier for most people to apply reason to, instead of degrading into emotional decision making.
Wow, you seem to enjoy ranting. In any case, you seem to range from slightly off topic to way off topic with regard to my post. You can argue how democratic or impartial the process has been, or even if you think it was biased. That does not, however have anything to do with the salient points of my comment. That is to say, the original poster was incorrect in it was not only the executive branch but also the judicial branch and it was a criminal case instead of a civil one. As to the rest of your commentary, it is pretty clear Microsoft is breaking the law as a business plan and has gone further than any other company in refusing to comply with court orders to stop breaking the law. What is happening is no surprise to Microsoft as they have always planned on paying legal fees, bribes, settlements, and fines, betting that those expenses would be smaller than the profit generated by their criminal actions. I don't really see why anyone would be upset when they have to pay some o those fines.
And if you comparing beta/nightly releases you should probably also add Opera 9.5 beta/weeklies so the result wouldn't biased. They also made great progress in performance.
True. I tried the beta (no idea where to get a nightly Opera build) but it originally failed completely, not even finishing the test, so I ran the stable version only. Later I tried the beta three more times, and once it did finish. I posted the result along with some other browser numbers last night.
I like how you're using the very latest, bleeding-edge, nightly builds of everything. Except Opera, which you're using the latest stable release of. Not even the beta, nevermind the even newer stuff.
I'm not trying to be partial, I did search Opera's Web site and the most recent version I could find for download is 9.50 beta. Unfortunately, Opera 9.50beta failed completely. It would not even finish the test (hung on crypto:aes). That is why I used vesion 9.26 (it being the most recent aside from 9.5 on their download page). I mentioned this to a friend, however, and he said it failed for him the first time, but worked a subsequent attempt. So I just tried it three more times, and one of them it actually completed. It resulted in the following:
Opera 9.50.4506 beta - 8388.4ms
I'm happy to try a more recent version on this same hardware if you can point me to one and if it actually is functional enough to run. Likewise if anyone can point to another browser they would like me to reference for them.
P.S. if you're involved in Opera development, the fact that selecting the "Opera" menu and "About Opera" loads a Web page over what you're doing, in my case canceling the test and making me start over, is really annoying. Can't it at least load a new tab?
Oh, and just for fun I also ran a few other browsers:
OmniWeb 5.7.v615 sneak peek 1 - 10001.4ms
iCab 4.0.1 - 9666.0ms
Camino 1.5.5 - 12088.8ms
Shiira 2.0 - 9530.0ms
That makes the full list for OS X:
Safari 3.0.4 - 11112.0ms
Safari with Nightly Webkit r30628 - 3525.8ms
Firefox 2.0.0.12 - 13840.0ms
Firefox 1.5.0.8 - 16849.6ms
Firefox Nightly3.0beta4pre - 4330.2ms
Opera 9.26.3727 - failed (but all those that ran were slower than Safari 3.0.4 so it is the slowest overall for what worked.)
Opera 9.50.4506 beta - 8388.4ms (this only worked one time and I ran it four total; still pretty buggy I guess.)
OmniWeb 5.7.v615 sneak peek 1 - 10001.4ms
iCab 4.0.1 - 9666.0ms
Camino 1.5.5 - 12088.8ms
Shiira 2.0 - 9530.0ms
I'm sure I missed a few and there are probably newer betas of some of those, but they were not easily found on their Web sites.
If you have KDE installed, can you try Konquerer? I tried it on my system, but it locked up the browser (using both the nightly and the stable version).
Oh jesus, not you again. Your rehashed "but everyone _wants_ MS OS's, so they have to sell them, so, umm, MS has a monopoly!" hand-waving chewbacca defense-esque argument is just stupid, I choose to ignore it.
If that is what you distilled from my post, well I guess those are your limitations. I'm sure not going to waste a lot of time trying to help your reading comprehension.
You've already proven you're a retard of some sort.
*Poof* there goes your credibility, as you fall back on flamebait. Good luck with that.
Yeah, and from the looks of it they just simply don't get it. OSX integration is about much more than making it look at first glance like it fits.
I dunno, I rather appreciate having a choice. If I want a version that has a native GUI with all the trimmings, I can use Camino. If I want a version of Firefox that runs on OS X, but otherwise acts just the same as Firefox on Linux or Windows, I can use the standard version. I see the market for both use cases.
No problem. I was going to run it on the stable and nightly builds of Konquerer and Firefox under kubuntu as well, but the test seems to lock up Konquerer completely. Oh well, what can one expect with nightly builds... not stability, that's for sure:)
I posted the comparison on OS X elsewhere in this discussion, but I'm not going to boot Windows just to test it. If the original article submitter would run the nightly Webkit/Safari it would be nice for comparison. It wins on OS X, so I'm somewhat curious as to how well it would do on Windows.
I think comparing firefox3b4p to webkit is like comparing apples and oranges. Firefox3b4p is a beta version of an actual product, whereas webkit is a rendering engine.
That's why that line in my comparison reads, "Safari with Nightly Webkit r30628." Safari is an actual browser, I just replaced the back end. It's not like I'm going to write my own minimalist front end for it, after all, when it is so easy to plug into Safari. In fact, if anything I'd say Firefox was getting the advantage since I tested the newest versions of their front end and back end whereas I used the old front end for Safari which could, theoretically, be optimized to work better with the latest version of WebKit.
When apple decides to upgrade safari with a newer version of webkit, then I'll take notice... But until then, webkit will just be a very nice shiny rendering engine with tons of potential.
I guess I don't see the difference between running a nightly build of Firefox (including Gecko) and running the nightly build of Webkit plugged into Safari. I didn't compile either one and both are just a download and then you double click on them. It is one of the nice things about separating the rendering engine and the front end. Try it yourself. This page has links for Windows and OS X. You just download the image and run it like you would any other application.
Replying to my own post, I probably should have included Firefox 2.0.0.12 as well. Here are the numbers for that and Firefox 1.5.0.8 which is still on my machine for testing purposes.
Safari 3.1 is supposed to be really fast as well. How do they stack up?
The nightly build of Webkit beats the nightly build of Firefox, when run on OS X (3.5 seconds versus 4.3 seconds). I posted the numbers, if you're interested.
They should have run it against the latest webkit.. it's supposed to be pretty fast..
Okay, I ran it on OS X anyway. I'm too lazy to run it on Windows too:) Here are the results. The new version of Webkit/Safari does beat the nightly of Firefox, but it is close and they're both a lot better than any regular release.
True, but the same principal applies. See De Beers. For over a decade their executives had to avoid travel to the US or countries that would extradite them there.
What bother's me the most is that the entire ruling was doled out by the European Commission rather than an impartial Judge.
I think you are mistaken. The commission ruled on the illegality as is their charter as an executive body (like the DoJ in the US). Microsoft then appealed the decision bringing it before the EU courts (judicial) and lost their appeal (in Sept 2007). MS then declined to further appeal the decision (announced in October 2007).
however a civil suit like this one should be dealt with by the judiciary instead.
This is a common misconception. In both the US and EU, antitrust abuse is a criminal offense, not a civil one. The confusion stems from the fact that most criminal cases begin as civil suits against the monopolist and are then taken over and made criminal cases by the executive body. If you recall, for example, it was the US Dept. of Justice V. Microsoft. Tat was not the DoJ suing MS in civil court for a contract violation against them.
This is why I don't believe the ruling is fair to Microsoft-- its like having the judge, jury and executioner all embodied by one body.
I can see where you would get your perception... news coverage is very soft and not detailed. I hope I've helped to clear this up for you.
Instead, you are locked-in to ONLY purchasing MS clients right now. And it is BECAUSE of this that the EU took action.
I agree with your entire post right up to this point. It doesn't matter if people are locked into only purchasing MS clients (from a legality standpoint). The issue the EU had was that you were forced to buy MS server in order to service MS clients conveniently. The issue is the effect this has on the sale of server OS's as a result of MS's tying to their client OS (monopoly).
* occasional graphic system hangs (background processes work fine, keyboard and mouse stop working, firing up a new dialog box causes a process to hang)
I haven't seen that one, so I can't comment.
* Looooong wait times for wake-from-sleep (15 seconds typical) with no indication whether it's going to wake from sleep at all (e.g. if the battery is drained)
Heh, I wish my Windows machine was as fast waking as a broken OS X machine.:) I've seen this one occasionally when running old carbon applications that have not been recompiled since 10.1. I think it has to do with a conflict when there is a runaway LaunchCFMApp process and the system is suspended and you require a password to wake from sleep. Or maybe you're seeing a different issue. Anyway, that does not seem fixed in 10.5.2
* sometimes doesn't sleep when lid is closed (until the battery drops to emergency levels, see above)
I had this problem with an old work machine. Eventually figured out it was a hardware problem. Replacing the hardware using an archive install fixed this and it has never been a problem since.
* sometimes doesn't recognize monitors when waking from sleep. Sometimes the monitor it doesn't recognize is the macbook's own.
I saw this one regularly with 10.4. It has been gone since I upgraded to 10.5.0 (archive install).
* Fucks up screen geometry when plugged into a 1600x1200 external monitor (menu bar moves to external monitor as needed, but stays at the native-screen width; X windows and most applications silently ignore clicks near the lower or right edges of the external monitor
Hmm, never seen that one.
I'm sorry I ever upgraded to Leopard -- it's such a buggy piece of crap that I'm beginning to feel like I'm using a Microsoft product.
That sucks. I guess all I can do here is echo others and recommend trying a fresh install and see what happens. Personally, I haven't had any problem bothersome enough for me to consider doing so since 10.0, since the install from old mac option is just too bloody convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Frame Technology Corp. wrote Framemaker and ported it to many Linux/UNIX based OS's, Windows, and Mac OS. Once Adobe acquired Frame Technology Corp. they slowly dropped all the other versions until 2004 when they finally dropped Mac OS (who at the time comprised about half of their user base), making this product a Windows only. They basically put the whole program in the deep freeze with minimal updates to keep things working and no new features while they tried to migrate users to their home grown InDesign which was written originally for making magazines and was very unsuited to technical books (which was Framemaker's main target). In fact, they only recently started up development again (outsourced to India) when MadCap Software announced a new program called Blaze, which was billed as having every feature of Framemaker, but implemented from scratch with many new features and an order of magnitude better performance. As of 2007, they claimed to have no plans to support anything but Windows going forward.
While it is true some religious scholars balk at the idea that evolution is the means by which "God" has shaped people and animals, I do believe the majority of christian sects do espouse that as official doctrine. The reason most Americans don't voice their sect's that belief and instead will say evolution is wrong is because they have not learned the official doctrine of their church and usually have not consulted their pastor or even read their bible all the way through.
The real motivating force behind the "evolution is wrong" social phenomenon is that people perceive themselves as being threatened. They think some egghead or bureaucrat at the school board is laughing at them for going to church every sunday and they are afraid they are not as smart as that person or maybe that person is right and they are going to cease to exist when they die or even that their children are going to decide they are smarter than their parents and think them ignorant or stupid. In any case they are threatened and react with fear and anger against that threat and counter attack emotionally, with the trappings of religion to justify their reaction to themselves.
I would assert that claiming opinions about evolution are a conflict of religion and science is incorrect. This seems to be more of a conflict of science and emotional decision making, with the latter being the majority on both sides of the debate.
This is simply not true. Religion and science do not always conflict. A great many religious people have no official book to reference. A great many more are willing to accept the results of the scientific method, and use religion as a way to try to figure out a purpose for life as well as guide their behaviors. Strictly applying the scientific method we likely exist because of random chance and there is no reason why a person should not go on a killing spree at the local daycare center using a chainsaw. For many people religion is a way to look for "truths" that science is unlikely to ever answer.
Ultimately you have to make the choice of what takes precidence and if you pick science over religion than you're not very religious and you if you pick religion over science you're certainly not a scientist.Or you can accept the results of the scientific method as the best way to determine how things work and look to religion to try to determine why things exist at all.
That said, I don't see why a religious person would feel obligated to not believe in evolution. There's nothing in the bible or any other holy book (to my knowledge) that says you can't nor is there any conclusive language that excludes the possibility.I think you're making a mistake here. Most people I have talked to who claim they disbelieve evolution don't even know what the theory of evolution is. Nor have they read the religious literature pertinent to their religion. In fact, while most Americans don't believe in evolution, most of them are members of a church whose official doctrine does accept evolution... but the followers have never bothered to discover that fact. Claiming evolution is wrong is not a conflict of religion and science for the most part. It is a sociological phenomenon where people are threatened by their own perceived lack of knowledge and intelligence and respond emotionally by attacking and dismissing what they perceive as that threat. Most people don't sit down with their bible and Origin of the Species and consider their implications for one another. Most people don't ask their local pastor about the topic. Most people see that someone probably thinks they are stupid because they go to church every sunday, which threatens their ego, which evokes the emotional responses of fear and anger and leads them to lash back at whatever it was that they see as the threat, be it the evolutionary theory or science in general.
Personally, I find that when I talk to someone who espouses the opinion that evolution is nonsense, usually about ten minutes later they have changed their opinion and now believe evolution makes sense, but academics are mostly arrogant jerks who like to cause trouble.
Your fictional conversation fails in that you are mislabeling one of the people as "scientist." If someone tells you that you have to learn everything they know to be a scientist... then clearly they are not a scientist themselves, at least for this interaction. A scientist is quite simply a person who understands and applies the scientific method to determine what is most likely to be true. That's it. You don't need a PhD. You don't have to know how to use a computer. You don't need a B.S. You don't need pocket protector or a microscope. You just have to understand and apply the scientific method.
The problem that arises is if you want to disagree with the theory of evolution... you are not a scientist. This not because you don't know everything some other person does, but because you have already decided what you think is the truth instead of applying the scientific method to determine what is the most likely truth.
I'm going to have to disagree with this one(sort of). "God" is inserted into the equation because most people don't think a theory without him adequately explains the basic question "why?" To elaborate, the theories of abiogenesis and evolution are very persuasive to the average person for explaining what, where and when things happened, but the majority of people cannot accept that "random chance" is why they exist. This is probably owing to their own perspective as the center of the world and difficulty in applying cold reason to such an emotionally explosive topic. It leads them towards the conclusion that when they die, in all likelihood their consciousness ceases to exist and that concept triggers a very strong fear and anger response since it is a direct threat to every part of their psyche.
In short the theories you mention with "God" added are simply easier for most people to apply reason to, instead of degrading into emotional decision making.
Wow, you seem to enjoy ranting. In any case, you seem to range from slightly off topic to way off topic with regard to my post. You can argue how democratic or impartial the process has been, or even if you think it was biased. That does not, however have anything to do with the salient points of my comment. That is to say, the original poster was incorrect in it was not only the executive branch but also the judicial branch and it was a criminal case instead of a civil one. As to the rest of your commentary, it is pretty clear Microsoft is breaking the law as a business plan and has gone further than any other company in refusing to comply with court orders to stop breaking the law. What is happening is no surprise to Microsoft as they have always planned on paying legal fees, bribes, settlements, and fines, betting that those expenses would be smaller than the profit generated by their criminal actions. I don't really see why anyone would be upset when they have to pay some o those fines.
True. I tried the beta (no idea where to get a nightly Opera build) but it originally failed completely, not even finishing the test, so I ran the stable version only. Later I tried the beta three more times, and once it did finish. I posted the result along with some other browser numbers last night.
I'm not trying to be partial, I did search Opera's Web site and the most recent version I could find for download is 9.50 beta. Unfortunately, Opera 9.50beta failed completely. It would not even finish the test (hung on crypto:aes). That is why I used vesion 9.26 (it being the most recent aside from 9.5 on their download page). I mentioned this to a friend, however, and he said it failed for him the first time, but worked a subsequent attempt. So I just tried it three more times, and one of them it actually completed. It resulted in the following:
I'm happy to try a more recent version on this same hardware if you can point me to one and if it actually is functional enough to run. Likewise if anyone can point to another browser they would like me to reference for them.
P.S. if you're involved in Opera development, the fact that selecting the "Opera" menu and "About Opera" loads a Web page over what you're doing, in my case canceling the test and making me start over, is really annoying. Can't it at least load a new tab?
Oh, and just for fun I also ran a few other browsers:
That makes the full list for OS X:
I'm sure I missed a few and there are probably newer betas of some of those, but they were not easily found on their Web sites.
No, I think PGO is not built on the OS X version. There seems to be stability issues.
If you have KDE installed, can you try Konquerer? I tried it on my system, but it locked up the browser (using both the nightly and the stable version).
If that is what you distilled from my post, well I guess those are your limitations. I'm sure not going to waste a lot of time trying to help your reading comprehension.
You've already proven you're a retard of some sort.*Poof* there goes your credibility, as you fall back on flamebait. Good luck with that.
I dunno, I rather appreciate having a choice. If I want a version that has a native GUI with all the trimmings, I can use Camino. If I want a version of Firefox that runs on OS X, but otherwise acts just the same as Firefox on Linux or Windows, I can use the standard version. I see the market for both use cases.
No problem. I was going to run it on the stable and nightly builds of Konquerer and Firefox under kubuntu as well, but the test seems to lock up Konquerer completely. Oh well, what can one expect with nightly builds... not stability, that's for sure :)
I posted the comparison on OS X elsewhere in this discussion, but I'm not going to boot Windows just to test it. If the original article submitter would run the nightly Webkit/Safari it would be nice for comparison. It wins on OS X, so I'm somewhat curious as to how well it would do on Windows.
That's why that line in my comparison reads, "Safari with Nightly Webkit r30628." Safari is an actual browser, I just replaced the back end. It's not like I'm going to write my own minimalist front end for it, after all, when it is so easy to plug into Safari. In fact, if anything I'd say Firefox was getting the advantage since I tested the newest versions of their front end and back end whereas I used the old front end for Safari which could, theoretically, be optimized to work better with the latest version of WebKit.
When apple decides to upgrade safari with a newer version of webkit, then I'll take notice... But until then, webkit will just be a very nice shiny rendering engine with tons of potential.I guess I don't see the difference between running a nightly build of Firefox (including Gecko) and running the nightly build of Webkit plugged into Safari. I didn't compile either one and both are just a download and then you double click on them. It is one of the nice things about separating the rendering engine and the front end. Try it yourself. This page has links for Windows and OS X. You just download the image and run it like you would any other application.
Replying to my own post, I probably should have included Firefox 2.0.0.12 as well. Here are the numbers for that and Firefox 1.5.0.8 which is still on my machine for testing purposes.
The nightly build of Webkit beats the nightly build of Firefox, when run on OS X (3.5 seconds versus 4.3 seconds). I posted the numbers, if you're interested.
I just ran the numbers on OS X and posted them, if you're interested.
Okay, I ran it on OS X anyway. I'm too lazy to run it on Windows too :) Here are the results. The new version of Webkit/Safari does beat the nightly of Firefox, but it is close and they're both a lot better than any regular release.
Well someone had to, so I ran the numbers for OS X. All of the below were on OS X 10.5.2 running on a MacBook:
I guess if you're a Safari or Firefox person you can look forward to some really fast Javascript performance either way.
On Windows it does taking 8 seconds to Safari 3's 18.
Heck, here are all the numbers from TFA (Note these apply on Windows only, not OS X or Linux):
True, but the same principal applies. See De Beers. For over a decade their executives had to avoid travel to the US or countries that would extradite them there.
I think you are mistaken. The commission ruled on the illegality as is their charter as an executive body (like the DoJ in the US). Microsoft then appealed the decision bringing it before the EU courts (judicial) and lost their appeal (in Sept 2007). MS then declined to further appeal the decision (announced in October 2007).
however a civil suit like this one should be dealt with by the judiciary instead.This is a common misconception. In both the US and EU, antitrust abuse is a criminal offense, not a civil one. The confusion stems from the fact that most criminal cases begin as civil suits against the monopolist and are then taken over and made criminal cases by the executive body. If you recall, for example, it was the US Dept. of Justice V. Microsoft. Tat was not the DoJ suing MS in civil court for a contract violation against them.
This is why I don't believe the ruling is fair to Microsoft-- its like having the judge, jury and executioner all embodied by one body.I can see where you would get your perception... news coverage is very soft and not detailed. I hope I've helped to clear this up for you.
I agree with your entire post right up to this point. It doesn't matter if people are locked into only purchasing MS clients (from a legality standpoint). The issue the EU had was that you were forced to buy MS server in order to service MS clients conveniently. The issue is the effect this has on the sale of server OS's as a result of MS's tying to their client OS (monopoly).
I haven't seen that one, so I can't comment.
* Looooong wait times for wake-from-sleep (15 seconds typical) with no indication whether it's going to wake from sleep at all (e.g. if the battery is drained)Heh, I wish my Windows machine was as fast waking as a broken OS X machine. :) I've seen this one occasionally when running old carbon applications that have not been recompiled since 10.1. I think it has to do with a conflict when there is a runaway LaunchCFMApp process and the system is suspended and you require a password to wake from sleep. Or maybe you're seeing a different issue. Anyway, that does not seem fixed in 10.5.2
* sometimes doesn't sleep when lid is closed (until the battery drops to emergency levels, see above)I had this problem with an old work machine. Eventually figured out it was a hardware problem. Replacing the hardware using an archive install fixed this and it has never been a problem since.
* sometimes doesn't recognize monitors when waking from sleep. Sometimes the monitor it doesn't recognize is the macbook's own.I saw this one regularly with 10.4. It has been gone since I upgraded to 10.5.0 (archive install).
* Fucks up screen geometry when plugged into a 1600x1200 external monitor (menu bar moves to external monitor as needed, but stays at the native-screen width; X windows and most applications silently ignore clicks near the lower or right edges of the external monitorHmm, never seen that one.
I'm sorry I ever upgraded to Leopard -- it's such a buggy piece of crap that I'm beginning to feel like I'm using a Microsoft product.That sucks. I guess all I can do here is echo others and recommend trying a fresh install and see what happens. Personally, I haven't had any problem bothersome enough for me to consider doing so since 10.0, since the install from old mac option is just too bloody convenient.