I bet it also took you 17 minutes to copy a 20MB file.
The Dock is a personal preference, and takes a while to get used to it. Most people seem to be okay with it, although some still hate it with a passion. Look around for replacements and enhancements.
Talk to Earthlink about a driver for their cheapo webcam. Apple aren't responsible for drivers for every type of hardware config you can imagine or bring over from other OSs.
QuickTime doesn't do that for me, and I've never seen it do that for others. It either plays or doesn't play. Playing for a few seconds doesn't seem right. What type of codec is required? Is it wmv or divx?
Sleep is a simple preference in the Energy Saver control panel. Odd that you couldn't find it.
Virtual desktops aren't supported by OS X, although there are a number of third party things that work well. But you seem to be blaming OS X for the faults in one of these. That's not logical.
Java apps... not sure about. I generally hate standalone Java apps, especially after my experiences with the execrable OpenOffice.
So, just for my curiosity - did you buy a Mac and get a refund, or were you always using Apple hardware to run your Linux?
What do you mean when you say Quartz will be patched fairly quick?
If you mean it'll be replaced by work-alike code, I don't see that happening in the short or medium term. It's a huge beast, and is used hugely in Cocoa apps.
If you mean hack it to remove parts of the OS, then couldn't Apple just check it on every software update?
You needn't say nice things for the sake of saying them.
I like the idea of Linux, but I just don't see why the average user would want it. It provides nothing you can't get on Windows or OS X. That's my point about innovating. The current trend of Linux seems to be more about making it more like the others, and not makking it easy to see what interface advantages Linux has.
The interface is hard to get right. With all their money, Microsoft arguably don't have it right. Apple comes a lot closer for me (which is why I use OS X). Linux is just awful, even compared to Windows.
Apple are probably going to use hardware tactics to maintain their control over their software. I see this as potentially bad, but the alternative as far worse for Apple.
The market will decide. As part of that market, I know where my dollars will go.
If it's done outside Apple's licence, Dell would be easy prey for Apple's lawyers. Just because they're big doesn't mean they're somehow immune or can do what they like. They would be found guilty of pirating software.
Of course, Dell would never do something that foolish. Whatever else they are, they're not dumb.
Apple will be *very* keen to protect their IP. Expect all sorts of things to lock it down, not least of which will be custom ASICs with no documentation. Contrary to what some people think, reverse-engineering one of those puppies is *hard* and takes a lot of time. No hacker will invest the time to do that, and if the chip also handles memory throughput and I/O interfacing, it'll be too critical to remove as well. There's your hardware lock-in! All they need is to ensure that the OS requires the hardware at key points in undocumented ways.
Which ROM is this? My iBook has no ROM inside, and neither has any Mac released in the past three or four years.
They all use Open Firmware.
Now, how Apple are going to move forward without OF and probably without a BIOS is another matter...... but I'm hoping that they can lock their OS to their machines. Mass piracy of OS X will be a nail in the coffin for Apple, and the industry only has one real player - Microsoft. Linux is nice, but I'm yet to see any real innovation there - it's all UI knock-offs, app knock-offs and so on. Only Apple and Microsoft are innovating today, and I'm not so sure about the latter.
They aren't lying or hypocritical when they say things like (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the quote in front of me) 'PPC can't take us in the direction we want to go in 2006'.
The processor speeds are (to Apple) still true now. It's just that next year and onwards this won't be the case.
And you know what? I think they're right. IBM just aren't going anywhere on the PPC970. Intel are pushing their lines very hard. Apple can't afford to allow more stagnation.
I posted this somewhere else recently, but it applies here today.
== On having two architectures to support (x86 and PPC) == So a developer has to compile for two targets, optimise for two targets and ship fat binaries? What will that do to development costs, and ease of development for the platform? What if a developer like Adobe decides to only support PPC development, and tells the x86 customers that they support Windows on x86 and that's it?
And then there are Apple's own issues. They've got to effectively double their Mac hardware R&D to support the two completely different architectures.
And what do they gain?
== On Everyone and Their Dog Switching en masse == When I talk to people, they buy a PC because they don't know about Macs. When they do know, they often go PC anyway because they're used to it. There's also pricing. Apple's machines do come at a premium, although I maintain that the iBook line is nicely priced (well, it was when I bought this one a year ago).
Suppose Apple sells a box with an Intel inside. For starters, why would the cost drop? A powerful Pentium is not so much cheaper than a G5. The other components are similar enough. Maybe Apple would use PC motherboards? So why would anyone buy their hardware from Apple?
I don't see any evidence that hordes of PC users are going to drop Windows just to get OS X on x86. I see lots of people on hobbyist sites say that they'd buy it, but they're a tiny minority of a large market. Would that translate to actual sales, or would there be a reason why many of them still wouldn't buy it? What about piracy? How many people would 'try it out' for an extended period of time and never get around to purchasing the boxed copy?
And make no mistake: to make up for the lost hardware sales, Apple would need hordes of switchers to buy those shrinkwrapped boxes. If sales aren't what they hope, there goes the business.
That's a point to remember too - if a CPU switch goes wrong, that could pretty much screw the company. A few billion in red ink, combined with potentially facing near-zero sales when you give away your flagship OS (I'm thinking software piracy and commodity x86 hardware here) and we'll see Apple closing its doors. Some mistakes can only be made once.
==On Software== I mentioned earlier that developers would likely have to support two completely different architectures, even in the 'best case' of Apple going entirely to x86. There's a legacy of PPC Macs out there that you have to sell to, after all.
That means that initially, there would be zero third party applications for OS X on x86. Not a single one. Maybe iLife really *is* all you need, perhaps with iWork. Over time, new apps would come out, but who would buy the new OS in the first year? That would be a hard sell to Herb and Judy Customer. "Sure, there's nothing you can do with it now, but give it a year or so and... Wow!" (I'm exaggerating of course, but you can go only so far with the iXxxx software before you itch to run something else.)
And what of the developers? I mentioned in an earlier post (not well stated though) that this would be the last straw for them. I'll modify that to "last straw for some of them." They have to learn new optimisation techniques, recompile all of their existing code for the new platform and re-release it - and that's the best case for consumers! Realistically we'll see more developers follow the Adobe and Quark path of holding off for 12-24 months for no apparent reason, and only when the market is safe, releasing their product as a new version with new features for the new platform.
The cost for any app being developed will increase. Not by double, as this would encourage more platform-independant code (well, CPU-independant at any rate), but there would be a definite increase. Who will pay for that? We will! Hooray! Software price rises!
And what if the developers simply say that the OS X platform is too unstable? After all, in five years we've seen a lot
Nice site. Shame it's full of outright distortions.
"I used to use an iPod but abandoned it for several reasons, the most important of which were lack of choice, and thier proprietary "AAC" file format."
AAC is open format. It's mp4. Apple's DRM can be added to it, but that's only for AAC files from Apple's online store.
And you onmit the fact that the iPod plays mp3s, by far the most common format for music at this moment.
"More important is the support for WMA files, which to my trained musical ears sounds better"
Personal opinion without any sort of analysis. That's not an issue though, as you effectively point out that it's an opinion.
"Maybe Apple's AAC sounds fine if you listen to hip-hop "music" with nothing but "thump thump" and "sss sss""
Okay, now you're degenerating into open ridicule that effectively means nothing. I bought my fiancee and iPod that now forms the basis of her stereo system. It plays pretty much all sorts of music, from classical to jazz to rock and pop. With reasonable bitrate mp3 files (ie 160kbps or higher) it sounds very good. This is my opinion of course, but it's as valid as yours.
"(not to mention disgusting lyrics about drugs, prostitutes, and violence)"
This is worthless and insulting, unless you can point out the feature on your portable player that stops you listening to music like this. The music people play is a personal preference. I don't like rap, but that doesn't make it wrong for others or meaningless. This point is utterly irrelevant, and you're just slinging mud here.
"But people who like to listen to music find AAC's artifacts annoying. WMA tends to work better for serious music."
You're confusing your opinion with fact here. Where are your objective tests to show these artefacts? I know that compression schemes introduce them, but your opinion is no more valid thanm mine here, and I say that the iPod handles music extremely well. Where's the data to back your point?
"Other interesting built-in features are a photo album, ability to connect directly to a digital camera for off-loading pictures, and an audio recorder with built-in microphone (!) and line-in jacks. I've used the line-in jacks to record 5 hours of Sirius radio onto the device so I'd have something to listen to on a cross-country flight."
The iPod Photo (of course) has the photo album, but the ability to import photos to the iPod without requiring an add-on device is something Apple failed in. This is definitely a point in favour of your player.
Recording directly into the unit is a great idea too.
"As you can see, it's a bit smaller (skinnier) than an iPod, and has a much nicer illuminated color display."
You gorgot to mention that your new player is being compared to a very old iPod. The iPod Photo is slimmer than your player, and also has a colour screen.
"It comes bundled with some "Napster" software that I wasn't interested in. However, I did eventually installl the "driver" (not sure what it did, because it worked without it), and I flashed the firmware with the latest version from the Samsung website. The new firmware provided for the completely open and free OGG format, another advantage over Apple."
Driver? Why does it need one?
OGG? That's nice enough, but outside of a very small group on Slashdot, I just haven't seen anyone asking for it.
"If you're some kid that listens to noise instead of music, and you think that overpriced overhyped products are "cool", get an iPod. "
You just couldn't resist this snide comment, could you? It's worthless, and utterly subjective. You want to distance yourself from the 'cool' group you seem to hate? That's nice. Why don't you justify yourself without reference to them then?
"However, if you like to listen to serious music, want a choice of music vendors and file formats, and want something that works with Microsoft Windows without installing some weird "iTunes" software, consider one of the S
It'd be an incredibly brave executive who would sign off on wasting a few *billion* dollars of shareholder money, on top of the PR damage that would ensue.
They'll cave. They can afford the fines, but they can't afford the pain and no CEO would sign off the "I want the board to sack me and the shareholders to haul me into court" order.
President Clippy: "You look like your country is trying to gain a trade advantage over the US! Would you like to-
* Sign a free trade agreement so massively weighted in the favour of the US that we will own your arses in a few years, but not until your ruling party has left power?
* Accept massive tarrifs being imposed on your imports into the US, effectively denying you access to the US economy?
* Sever all trade with the US, and become a third-world banana republic?
* Suffer a concerted bombing campaign, followed by an invasion and finally annexation as a new US state?
I seem to be following your posts today. It's not personal, but I can't let some things pass without comment.
You said "I'm also at something of a loss as to why not being able to uninstall IE is related to slowing browser development. It's not like using another web browser has ever been difficult."
And you're right - it's trivial to install FireFox or Opera or whatever you like. The issue is not that it's hard, it's that almost no-one does this because most people are not power-users. They use the apps that came with the machine, and not much else.
If we accept that as true, and accept that the computing world is massively dominated by Microsoft, then the conclusion must be that web developers are targeting that platform because it's the most common one.
Unfortunately the IE platform has been largely stuck in the same place for some time, while other browsers have moved on to better support of emerging 'standards'.
You're wrong about not being able to pull the applications for QuickTime or iTunes from OS X.
You can easily delete them, and once you do that, they're gone for good. You can install a competing product if you like.
What you can't remove is the QuickTime framework, which is the media layer for OS X. I don't know why you'd want to - it's be like wanting to drop Quartz (the display manager for OS X) or OpenGL (the 3D manager for OS X). You can 'roll your own' if you like, but many applications depend on the system having its core components installed (ie - don't pull them out!).
You seem to keep making this same mistake in posts. QuickTime the application is not QuickTime the framework. It's unfortunate that the names are similar (the app is called "QuickTime Player", I think), but that doesn't change the fact that the functions are different.
I believe that the real issue with IE is partly that it's impossible to truly remove, but mostly the tactics that Microsoft used to make sure that no competing product was installed on PCs in the factory. The threats to charge more for Windows or not sell it at all were dire threats in a market with razor-thin margins, and that was the illegal use of monopoly power.
Ideally they should be in alignment, but as you point out, it's not hard to find times when legality was against ethics (although this might be an historical perspective - slavery, as repugnant as we find it today - goes back to Biblical times and was often thought okay).
But back to the point - Microsoft used their monopoly power to crush competition. I can't see any ethical or moral good there. They reduced consumer choices and threatened businesses with retribution if they failed to tow the line.
The tactics they used were clearly wrong - ethically, morally and legally. This isn't a 'shades of grey' case. It's too simple for that.
So can you remove IE completely from yourt system? It's not a framework, after all, it's an application. You should be able to delete it or uninstall it, just as you can with any other application.
Unless it's not an application, but a system function. Which is completely different from Safari, and not a good analogy.
Not sure about WMP. Can't say I've ever used it. When I finally get my AMD64 system working this weekend, I'll try removing it from the fresh Win64 install and see how that goes.
Of course, the problem with Microsoft was slightly different. If a PC manufacturer wanted to install a different browser on their desktop, Microsoft refused to allow it unless they agreed to increase the price of Windows.
That's why they were found guilty in the US. Not because IE was given away for free, but because anyone who tried to compete in that space was unreasonably punished in other areas.
It's also a bit different in the Apple world, as there are no third-party PC manufacturers pumping out Macs. Apple can choose what to install on their own desktop, and that's all well and good. As they currently hold 3-5 percent of the market (depending on who you listen to) they can't be considered in any manner to be using monopolistic power illegally.
So you're looking for more evidence of illegality than a court ruling? The fact that after several appeals, the highest court in the US upheld the verdict doesn't sway you?
That's true, broadly speaking, but there are a couple of points worth raising.
The QuickTime framework is the media framework for OS X. The QuickTime application is a simple, stand-alone player that relies on the framework.
You *really* don't want to remove the framework, because (as you point out) a lot of OS X functionality will then fail.
But you can easily remove the player. In fact, you can ditch the player and install another player that either relies on its own codecs and image/video code, or relies on the QuickTime framework.
The framework doesn't hinder development of competing apps, and is thoroughly and publicly documented.
The excellent and free VLC player is a good example. It competes directly with Apple's QuickTime player, and is superior to it in some ways (although I find the interface a complete dog).
The question could be rewritten as 'why do you want to remove the QuickTime APIs from OS X?', and leads to similar questions like 'why use Apple's windowing system in OS X - why not write our own?'
The APIs in themselves don't harm competition, so long as they're publicly documented and available to developers. They actually simplify development and allow new apps with complex features to be built in less time.
I think Apple actually understand this. While they market their OS - which is understandable given that it's just been released - they really focus on pushing iLife and iWork.
The Mac Mini runs them both, and runs them very well indeed. People wanting a computer for their photos, some home videos, Internet use and email shouldn't overlook the Mini. It's ideal for these things, and it's in a form factor that makes it seem like a quick, easy purchase.
It's not for everyone by any means. It's not for me, for example, because I want portability currently, and later I'll want something more like an iMac perhaps (although building the AMD64 box consumes my resources right now). It's definitely not for people who look straight to the bottom line or who want to play demanding games on it (although it can play UT2K4 quite well, judging by the way my identically-specced iBook can).
But the machine is sold as a way to do stuff. Look at Apple's page for it, and iLife is mentioned right up there... "Manage your music for iPod or organize and share your digital pictures with ease. Connect your digital camcorder to Mac mini and start editing your masterpiece. Or plug in your electric guitar or keyboard and make music. How? With iLife, a suite of easy-to-use applications ready to turn your life into a digital wonderland. And Mac OS X makes it effortless -- you won't have to install extra drivers when you add hardware to your system."
Points 5 and 6 boil down to realism of women in video games. If you think that requires an analyst or some sort of special design, then you've been in an all male environment too long.
It doesn't have to be a dating game to attract women. I think that's the sort of crap that divides gaming between men's games and women's games and leads to the idea that only Barbie games will sell to young girls.
A case in point - the Tomb Raider games were played by male and female gamers, although very few female gamers liked the bustline of Lara Croft. It was obviously a cheesecake thing to get boys in.
On the other hand, the character was an otherwise fairly realistic character (for the time) with some strength about her. That appealed to female gamers.
Contrast that with female characters that are pretty much all cheesecake with no redeeming qualities. Despite the fantasies of young boys, women won't go into combat wearing a thong and some leather, and I believe (but have no direct proof) that a plate metal bra or a scale-mail bra would be very uncomfortable over the massive breasts so often seen in games.
Don't want to write a dating game? Fine. Just include female characters who behave like *real women* do. Don't include gratuitous cheesecake unless you actively want to drive female players away.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet it also took you 17 minutes to copy a 20MB file.
The Dock is a personal preference, and takes a while to get used to it. Most people seem to be okay with it, although some still hate it with a passion. Look around for replacements and enhancements.
Talk to Earthlink about a driver for their cheapo webcam. Apple aren't responsible for drivers for every type of hardware config you can imagine or bring over from other OSs.
QuickTime doesn't do that for me, and I've never seen it do that for others. It either plays or doesn't play. Playing for a few seconds doesn't seem right. What type of codec is required? Is it wmv or divx?
Sleep is a simple preference in the Energy Saver control panel. Odd that you couldn't find it.
Virtual desktops aren't supported by OS X, although there are a number of third party things that work well. But you seem to be blaming OS X for the faults in one of these. That's not logical.
Java apps... not sure about. I generally hate standalone Java apps, especially after my experiences with the execrable OpenOffice.
So, just for my curiosity - did you buy a Mac and get a refund, or were you always using Apple hardware to run your Linux?
Good points.
What do you mean when you say Quartz will be patched fairly quick?
If you mean it'll be replaced by work-alike code, I don't see that happening in the short or medium term. It's a huge beast, and is used hugely in Cocoa apps.
If you mean hack it to remove parts of the OS, then couldn't Apple just check it on every software update?
Could be escalating tactics on both sides, then.
You needn't say nice things for the sake of saying them.
I like the idea of Linux, but I just don't see why the average user would want it. It provides nothing you can't get on Windows or OS X. That's my point about innovating. The current trend of Linux seems to be more about making it more like the others, and not makking it easy to see what interface advantages Linux has.
The interface is hard to get right. With all their money, Microsoft arguably don't have it right. Apple comes a lot closer for me (which is why I use OS X). Linux is just awful, even compared to Windows.
Apple are probably going to use hardware tactics to maintain their control over their software. I see this as potentially bad, but the alternative as far worse for Apple.
The market will decide. As part of that market, I know where my dollars will go.
Maybe you should give Apple the benefit of the doubt until we know for sure.
Their history shows that they prefer to put the trust on the user rather than enforce it.
If it's done outside Apple's licence, Dell would be easy prey for Apple's lawyers. Just because they're big doesn't mean they're somehow immune or can do what they like. They would be found guilty of pirating software.
Of course, Dell would never do something that foolish. Whatever else they are, they're not dumb.
Apple will be *very* keen to protect their IP. Expect all sorts of things to lock it down, not least of which will be custom ASICs with no documentation. Contrary to what some people think, reverse-engineering one of those puppies is *hard* and takes a lot of time. No hacker will invest the time to do that, and if the chip also handles memory throughput and I/O interfacing, it'll be too critical to remove as well. There's your hardware lock-in! All they need is to ensure that the OS requires the hardware at key points in undocumented ways.
Which ROM is this? My iBook has no ROM inside, and neither has any Mac released in the past three or four years.
... but I'm hoping that they can lock their OS to their machines. Mass piracy of OS X will be a nail in the coffin for Apple, and the industry only has one real player - Microsoft. Linux is nice, but I'm yet to see any real innovation there - it's all UI knock-offs, app knock-offs and so on. Only Apple and Microsoft are innovating today, and I'm not so sure about the latter.
They all use Open Firmware.
Now, how Apple are going to move forward without OF and probably without a BIOS is another matter...
Ah, but you missed the spin.
They aren't lying or hypocritical when they say things like (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the quote in front of me) 'PPC can't take us in the direction we want to go in 2006'.
The processor speeds are (to Apple) still true now. It's just that next year and onwards this won't be the case.
And you know what? I think they're right. IBM just aren't going anywhere on the PPC970. Intel are pushing their lines very hard. Apple can't afford to allow more stagnation.
Obviously I was spectacularly wrong on this.
Maybe I should become an industry pundit then.
It'd be a great way to perpetuate the class-action suit. I can see the legal team in raptures over a chance to lose more money.
These iPods are old, well used and most likely not working any longer. They won't be good as replacement parts, let alone replacement units.
I posted this somewhere else recently, but it applies here today.
== On having two architectures to support (x86 and PPC) ==
So a developer has to compile for two targets, optimise for two targets and ship fat binaries? What will that do to development costs, and ease of development for the platform? What if a developer like Adobe decides to only support PPC development, and tells the x86 customers that they support Windows on x86 and that's it?
And then there are Apple's own issues. They've got to effectively double their Mac hardware R&D to support the two completely different architectures.
And what do they gain?
== On Everyone and Their Dog Switching en masse ==
When I talk to people, they buy a PC because they don't know about Macs. When they do know, they often go PC anyway because they're used to it. There's also pricing. Apple's machines do come at a premium, although I maintain that the iBook line is nicely priced (well, it was when I bought this one a year ago).
Suppose Apple sells a box with an Intel inside. For starters, why would the cost drop? A powerful Pentium is not so much cheaper than a G5. The other components are similar enough. Maybe Apple would use PC motherboards? So why would anyone buy their hardware from Apple?
I don't see any evidence that hordes of PC users are going to drop Windows just to get OS X on x86. I see lots of people on hobbyist sites say that they'd buy it, but they're a tiny minority of a large market. Would that translate to actual sales, or would there be a reason why many of them still wouldn't buy it? What about piracy? How many people would 'try it out' for an extended period of time and never get around to purchasing the boxed copy?
And make no mistake: to make up for the lost hardware sales, Apple would need hordes of switchers to buy those shrinkwrapped boxes. If sales aren't what they hope, there goes the business.
That's a point to remember too - if a CPU switch goes wrong, that could pretty much screw the company. A few billion in red ink, combined with potentially facing near-zero sales when you give away your flagship OS (I'm thinking software piracy and commodity x86 hardware here) and we'll see Apple closing its doors. Some mistakes can only be made once.
==On Software==
I mentioned earlier that developers would likely have to support two completely different architectures, even in the 'best case' of Apple going entirely to x86. There's a legacy of PPC Macs out there that you have to sell to, after all.
That means that initially, there would be zero third party applications for OS X on x86. Not a single one. Maybe iLife really *is* all you need, perhaps with iWork. Over time, new apps would come out, but who would buy the new OS in the first year? That would be a hard sell to Herb and Judy Customer. "Sure, there's nothing you can do with it now, but give it a year or so and... Wow!" (I'm exaggerating of course, but you can go only so far with the iXxxx software before you itch to run something else.)
And what of the developers? I mentioned in an earlier post (not well stated though) that this would be the last straw for them. I'll modify that to "last straw for some of them." They have to learn new optimisation techniques, recompile all of their existing code for the new platform and re-release it - and that's the best case for consumers! Realistically we'll see more developers follow the Adobe and Quark path of holding off for 12-24 months for no apparent reason, and only when the market is safe, releasing their product as a new version with new features for the new platform.
The cost for any app being developed will increase. Not by double, as this would encourage more platform-independant code (well, CPU-independant at any rate), but there would be a definite increase. Who will pay for that? We will! Hooray! Software price rises!
And what if the developers simply say that the OS X platform is too unstable? After all, in five years we've seen a lot
There's nothing to substantiate their story. It's all down to "CNET has learned..." and nothing else.
Is this yet another rumour? Is there anything to be read in Apple meeting with Intel above the idea that they might go PCIe instead of PCI-X?
Nice site. Shame it's full of outright distortions.
"I used to use an iPod but abandoned it for several reasons, the most important of which were lack of choice, and thier proprietary "AAC" file format."
AAC is open format. It's mp4. Apple's DRM can be added to it, but that's only for AAC files from Apple's online store.
And you onmit the fact that the iPod plays mp3s, by far the most common format for music at this moment.
"More important is the support for WMA files, which to my trained musical ears sounds better"
Personal opinion without any sort of analysis. That's not an issue though, as you effectively point out that it's an opinion.
"Maybe Apple's AAC sounds fine if you listen to hip-hop "music" with nothing but "thump thump" and "sss sss""
Okay, now you're degenerating into open ridicule that effectively means nothing. I bought my fiancee and iPod that now forms the basis of her stereo system. It plays pretty much all sorts of music, from classical to jazz to rock and pop. With reasonable bitrate mp3 files (ie 160kbps or higher) it sounds very good. This is my opinion of course, but it's as valid as yours.
"(not to mention disgusting lyrics about drugs, prostitutes, and violence)"
This is worthless and insulting, unless you can point out the feature on your portable player that stops you listening to music like this. The music people play is a personal preference. I don't like rap, but that doesn't make it wrong for others or meaningless. This point is utterly irrelevant, and you're just slinging mud here.
"But people who like to listen to music find AAC's artifacts annoying. WMA tends to work better for serious music."
You're confusing your opinion with fact here. Where are your objective tests to show these artefacts? I know that compression schemes introduce them, but your opinion is no more valid thanm mine here, and I say that the iPod handles music extremely well. Where's the data to back your point?
"Other interesting built-in features are a photo album, ability to connect directly to a digital camera for off-loading pictures, and an audio recorder with built-in microphone (!) and line-in jacks. I've used the line-in jacks to record 5 hours of Sirius radio onto the device so I'd have something to listen to on a cross-country flight."
The iPod Photo (of course) has the photo album, but the ability to import photos to the iPod without requiring an add-on device is something Apple failed in. This is definitely a point in favour of your player.
Recording directly into the unit is a great idea too.
"As you can see, it's a bit smaller (skinnier) than an iPod, and has a much nicer illuminated color display."
You gorgot to mention that your new player is being compared to a very old iPod. The iPod Photo is slimmer than your player, and also has a colour screen.
"It comes bundled with some "Napster" software that I wasn't interested in. However, I did eventually installl the "driver" (not sure what it did, because it worked without it), and I flashed the firmware with the latest version from the Samsung website. The new firmware provided for the completely open and free OGG format, another advantage over Apple."
Driver? Why does it need one?
OGG? That's nice enough, but outside of a very small group on Slashdot, I just haven't seen anyone asking for it.
"If you're some kid that listens to noise instead of music, and you think that overpriced overhyped products are "cool", get an iPod. "
You just couldn't resist this snide comment, could you? It's worthless, and utterly subjective. You want to distance yourself from the 'cool' group you seem to hate? That's nice. Why don't you justify yourself without reference to them then?
"However, if you like to listen to serious music, want a choice of music vendors and file formats, and want something that works with Microsoft Windows without installing some weird "iTunes" software, consider one of the S
It'd be an incredibly brave executive who would sign off on wasting a few *billion* dollars of shareholder money, on top of the PR damage that would ensue.
They'll cave. They can afford the fines, but they can't afford the pain and no CEO would sign off the "I want the board to sack me and the shareholders to haul me into court" order.
President Clippy :
... ...
"You look like your country is trying to gain a trade advantage over the US! Would you like to-
* Sign a free trade agreement so massively weighted in the favour of the US that we will own your arses in a few years, but not until your ruling party has left power?
* Accept massive tarrifs being imposed on your imports into the US, effectively denying you access to the US economy?
* Sever all trade with the US, and become a third-world banana republic?
* Suffer a concerted bombing campaign, followed by an invasion and finally annexation as a new US state?
* Be nuked back to the stone age?"
Actually, he's pretty sharp, that Clippy!
I seem to be following your posts today. It's not personal, but I can't let some things pass without comment.
You said "I'm also at something of a loss as to why not being able to uninstall IE is related to slowing browser development. It's not like using another web browser has ever been difficult."
And you're right - it's trivial to install FireFox or Opera or whatever you like. The issue is not that it's hard, it's that almost no-one does this because most people are not power-users. They use the apps that came with the machine, and not much else.
If we accept that as true, and accept that the computing world is massively dominated by Microsoft, then the conclusion must be that web developers are targeting that platform because it's the most common one.
Unfortunately the IE platform has been largely stuck in the same place for some time, while other browsers have moved on to better support of emerging 'standards'.
You're wrong about not being able to pull the applications for QuickTime or iTunes from OS X.
You can easily delete them, and once you do that, they're gone for good. You can install a competing product if you like.
What you can't remove is the QuickTime framework, which is the media layer for OS X. I don't know why you'd want to - it's be like wanting to drop Quartz (the display manager for OS X) or OpenGL (the 3D manager for OS X). You can 'roll your own' if you like, but many applications depend on the system having its core components installed (ie - don't pull them out!).
You seem to keep making this same mistake in posts. QuickTime the application is not QuickTime the framework. It's unfortunate that the names are similar (the app is called "QuickTime Player", I think), but that doesn't change the fact that the functions are different.
I believe that the real issue with IE is partly that it's impossible to truly remove, but mostly the tactics that Microsoft used to make sure that no competing product was installed on PCs in the factory. The threats to charge more for Windows or not sell it at all were dire threats in a market with razor-thin margins, and that was the illegal use of monopoly power.
You're confusing legality with ethics.
Ideally they should be in alignment, but as you point out, it's not hard to find times when legality was against ethics (although this might be an historical perspective - slavery, as repugnant as we find it today - goes back to Biblical times and was often thought okay).
But back to the point - Microsoft used their monopoly power to crush competition. I can't see any ethical or moral good there. They reduced consumer choices and threatened businesses with retribution if they failed to tow the line.
The tactics they used were clearly wrong - ethically, morally and legally. This isn't a 'shades of grey' case. It's too simple for that.
AOL tried that already, and look at them now!
Cool.
So can you remove IE completely from yourt system? It's not a framework, after all, it's an application. You should be able to delete it or uninstall it, just as you can with any other application.
Unless it's not an application, but a system function. Which is completely different from Safari, and not a good analogy.
Not sure about WMP. Can't say I've ever used it. When I finally get my AMD64 system working this weekend, I'll try removing it from the fresh Win64 install and see how that goes.
Of course, the problem with Microsoft was slightly different. If a PC manufacturer wanted to install a different browser on their desktop, Microsoft refused to allow it unless they agreed to increase the price of Windows.
That's why they were found guilty in the US. Not because IE was given away for free, but because anyone who tried to compete in that space was unreasonably punished in other areas.
It's also a bit different in the Apple world, as there are no third-party PC manufacturers pumping out Macs. Apple can choose what to install on their own desktop, and that's all well and good. As they currently hold 3-5 percent of the market (depending on who you listen to) they can't be considered in any manner to be using monopolistic power illegally.
So you're looking for more evidence of illegality than a court ruling? The fact that after several appeals, the highest court in the US upheld the verdict doesn't sway you?
So what would you need to prove illegality?
That's true, broadly speaking, but there are a couple of points worth raising.
The QuickTime framework is the media framework for OS X. The QuickTime application is a simple, stand-alone player that relies on the framework.
You *really* don't want to remove the framework, because (as you point out) a lot of OS X functionality will then fail.
But you can easily remove the player. In fact, you can ditch the player and install another player that either relies on its own codecs and image/video code, or relies on the QuickTime framework.
The framework doesn't hinder development of competing apps, and is thoroughly and publicly documented.
The excellent and free VLC player is a good example. It competes directly with Apple's QuickTime player, and is superior to it in some ways (although I find the interface a complete dog).
The question could be rewritten as 'why do you want to remove the QuickTime APIs from OS X?', and leads to similar questions like 'why use Apple's windowing system in OS X - why not write our own?'
The APIs in themselves don't harm competition, so long as they're publicly documented and available to developers. They actually simplify development and allow new apps with complex features to be built in less time.
What about the NeXT Cube?
Hmm... Steve Jobs at the helm in both cases...
I think Apple actually understand this. While they market their OS - which is understandable given that it's just been released - they really focus on pushing iLife and iWork.
The Mac Mini runs them both, and runs them very well indeed. People wanting a computer for their photos, some home videos, Internet use and email shouldn't overlook the Mini. It's ideal for these things, and it's in a form factor that makes it seem like a quick, easy purchase.
It's not for everyone by any means. It's not for me, for example, because I want portability currently, and later I'll want something more like an iMac perhaps (although building the AMD64 box consumes my resources right now). It's definitely not for people who look straight to the bottom line or who want to play demanding games on it (although it can play UT2K4 quite well, judging by the way my identically-specced iBook can).
But the machine is sold as a way to do stuff. Look at Apple's page for it, and iLife is mentioned right up there... "Manage your music for iPod or organize and share your digital pictures with ease. Connect your digital camcorder to Mac mini and start editing your masterpiece. Or plug in your electric guitar or keyboard and make music. How? With iLife, a suite of easy-to-use applications ready to turn your life into a digital wonderland. And Mac OS X makes it effortless -- you won't have to install extra drivers when you add hardware to your system."
The applications are the focus.
That's fair enough.
You want a powerful computer, that can keep pace with (at least) the PowerMacs or iMacs.
And is expandable.
And in the Mac Mini form factor.
And cheap.
From Apple.
Umm...
(says he, typing on his trusty iBook)
Points 5 and 6 boil down to realism of women in video games. If you think that requires an analyst or some sort of special design, then you've been in an all male environment too long.
It doesn't have to be a dating game to attract women. I think that's the sort of crap that divides gaming between men's games and women's games and leads to the idea that only Barbie games will sell to young girls.
A case in point - the Tomb Raider games were played by male and female gamers, although very few female gamers liked the bustline of Lara Croft. It was obviously a cheesecake thing to get boys in.
On the other hand, the character was an otherwise fairly realistic character (for the time) with some strength about her. That appealed to female gamers.
Contrast that with female characters that are pretty much all cheesecake with no redeeming qualities. Despite the fantasies of young boys, women won't go into combat wearing a thong and some leather, and I believe (but have no direct proof) that a plate metal bra or a scale-mail bra would be very uncomfortable over the massive breasts so often seen in games.
Don't want to write a dating game? Fine. Just include female characters who behave like *real women* do. Don't include gratuitous cheesecake unless you actively want to drive female players away.
It doesn't have to be that hard.