The problem isn't that Apple are offering Safari to Windows users, it's the method by which they have chosen to do it.
It would be fine if Apple offered it when you download iTunes/Quicktime, but to offer it via a mechanism that has been designed to offer security updates is wrong.
We need as many people using software updaters as possible because it keeps users safe online. Some companies aren't so bothered about user safety. Mozilla is one of those that are.
Therefore, when a software update system is abused like this, it has the danger of turning people off of updating software. People will get fed up with new, potentially unwanted software 'tagging on' to security updates. That's the problem.
Apple are fine to offer Safari to as many people it likes, but wouldn't it be better, honestly, if it didn't do it through the same system it uses to keep it's users safe?
I'm using a Mac, and I also use Windows on the same machine via Parallels Desktop.
Personally, I don't run any anti virus software at all. It's installed; I do a scan perhaps every few months, and it's not found any viruses on either the Mac side or the Windows side in over a year. I certainly don't have any 'always on auto protect' crap turned on.
I really do think anti virus software generates the false impression that you're protected, when in fact people need to start taking more responsibility for what they do online. I'm in favour of any software that helps people make decisions about the sort of sites they are accessing. Just look at the Firefox 3 beta for an example.
But anti-virus software? It's resource hungry and expensive. Honestly, don't bother. Just know what you're downloading and take proper precautions. And help others do the same.
I'm fed up of the attitude that people deserve to get stung because they couldn't tell they were using a phishing site. Perhaps we know what we're looking for, but that doesn't mean less sophisticated web users do.
The web browser is the window onto the internet- it should do everything it can to alert the user if they are using an unsafe site. The more layers of technology the better. EV Certificates, site blacklisting, etc etc.
Also, we need to shake off the idea that "the lock icon means you're safe". All it means is the connection is secure; you could still be on a phishing site.
Browsers should do more to encourage people to check what site they are on before they enter their info. I reckon Firefox 3 has got the right idea. Firefox 3 beta has a 'site info' icon right next to the address bar. You can click this at any time to find out what site you're connected to, if the connection is secure, and to learn if you have visited the site before.
We'll never stop phishing or any type of fraud, but browser developers need to get their finger out and wake up to the fact that there's a lot of people out there who don't know how to protect themselves. It doesn't mean they're stupid and they certainly don't deserve to get phished.
I have a two and a half year old Nokia N70 which is one of the oldest 3G phones on the market. I still get over 3 days between recharges. I use my phone quite a lot for web, games, talk and text and as I said, I get 3 days.
Nokia fanboys. Always going on about how their phones are better.
And if you install iTunes, it will silently replace Quicktime with a newer version, without even giving you an option.
Must be a Windows-specific thing. On OS X, Software Update just offered me up iTunes 7.6 and the new QT as separate items. I've installed iTunes but not QT. All seems to be running fine.
Seattle's firework display is powered by the same computer that hosts the XBOX live service
Give them time guys, they'll fix the problems one at a time.
Apple has already explicitly stated that they are not going to intentionally or proactively do anything to unlocked phones.
To the contrary:
"It's a cat-and-mouse game. We try to stay ahead. People will try to break in, and it's our job to stop them breaking in"
-Steve Jobs, Tuesday 18th September 2007
I think you might have been mistaken with Apple's earlier statement around iPhone hacking, i.e. shoe-horning 3rd party native apps onto the iPhone. Here, Apple have said they are taking a "neutral stance" on iPhone hacking. In short, iPhone 'hacking' and 'unlocking' refer to different things.
Domain names are not real estate. God I'm sick of that flawed analogy. It's not necessarily a flawed analogy, it's just one that you don't agree with.
Domain names could be compared with real estate. It's an address, after all.
If I want to construct a building, I would have to accept that the plot of land I choose for my building might already been owned by someone else. Maybe they just bought it, intending to sit on it, reaping the benefits of the 'value appreciation' of that land.
Domain names and real estate are not so different.
I can imagine why. I'm one of those people.
I have installed on this Mac NeoOffice, OpenOffice.org, and Microsoft Office:Mac 2004.
I have followed the development of Office:Mac 2008 via the MSDN Mac Blog and various other sites and I'm looking forward to its release. I fully intend to purchase it when it comes out later this year.
Why? Because I prefer it. Just looking at Office:Mac 2004, it looks more Mac-native than other office suites I've tried. I find it more responsive. I like using it. I still fire up NeoOffice from time to time, for light database work, but I don't like its word processor and I don't like its spreadsheet application.
OpenOffice.org bugs me slightly, I just feel awkward using it. It is because I'm used to MS Office? Maybe. But I don't like its dependence on X11 and I don't like the fact that the title of the software is a web address. What's wrong with 'OpenOffice'? Do we need '.org' at the end? My car isn't a Ford.com, my cereal of choice isn't Kellogs.com...
It's possible to buy a Mac and still use, and like using, Microsoft software. I use MSN Messenger to keep in touch with faraway friends. I know I could use Adium, and I did for awhile. But I didn't like the interface. iChat AV looks nice but none of my friends are on AIM and only a few have Macs.
It's not because I'm not smart that I use MS software on my Mac. I genuinely prefer it, I think it's polished to a high standard compared to the free alternatives and I'm awaiting Office:Mac 2008 with intent.
Ah, the Mac Pro. Apple released a firmware update that added a BIOS emulation module, thus tricking Windows into thinking it was booting off a PC with BIOS.
There's a very brief paragraph here: http://www.winxponmac.com/Apple_Bootcamp/Apple_Boo tcamp.html that explains this, sort of
With this in mind, Boot Camp would not have been needed in your case.
Out of curiosity, what boot loader do you use?
Not true.
Windows requires BIOS to boot from. Macs use the more modern EFI.
Apple releases Boot Camp as it emulates a BIOS environment for Windows to boot.
Prior to Boot Camp, a competition was held to see if anyone could get Windows to boot on the first Intel Mac- which was the iMac.
The winner of the (non-Apple supported) competition scooped something in the region of $13,000
It involved a lot of hacking to get it done, but it worked.
Boot Camp does this without the user having to hack anything.
You show an incredible level of ignorance. I would suggest you research just how many studios actually use FCP before 'assuming' only drag and drop kiddies use it.
Where do you source your information from?
Final Cut 3 was PPC only, and you're right wouldn't run on x86.
Apple then released Final Cut 3.5, which wasn't just a universal binary of the same app, it had additional features, too. Soundtrack and LiveType are also two components that received quite an overhaul.
OK, here we go.
You own the physical media, the CD rom.
The software is owned by Microsoft.
It is an asset of theirs, but an intangible one. Therefore, MS can assign to it whatever cash value they please in their financials, under 'Intangible assets'
You do not own the software. MS still do.
You paid money for a licence, to use the software in the way MS allow you to within that licence.
Intangible assets do not have to be depreciated. Brand names, intellectual property and so on are not tangible. A lender, for example, could not take a legal charge over such assets, as they do not have a net book value.
They do, however, have a value to the company, and that is intangible. Something free from balance sheet inclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're to blame!
The problem isn't that Apple are offering Safari to Windows users, it's the method by which they have chosen to do it. It would be fine if Apple offered it when you download iTunes/Quicktime, but to offer it via a mechanism that has been designed to offer security updates is wrong. We need as many people using software updaters as possible because it keeps users safe online. Some companies aren't so bothered about user safety. Mozilla is one of those that are. Therefore, when a software update system is abused like this, it has the danger of turning people off of updating software. People will get fed up with new, potentially unwanted software 'tagging on' to security updates. That's the problem. Apple are fine to offer Safari to as many people it likes, but wouldn't it be better, honestly, if it didn't do it through the same system it uses to keep it's users safe?
Anti virus sotware is a waste of time and money.
I'm using a Mac, and I also use Windows on the same machine via Parallels Desktop.
Personally, I don't run any anti virus software at all. It's installed; I do a scan perhaps every few months, and it's not found any viruses on either the Mac side or the Windows side in over a year. I certainly don't have any 'always on auto protect' crap turned on.
I really do think anti virus software generates the false impression that you're protected, when in fact people need to start taking more responsibility for what they do online. I'm in favour of any software that helps people make decisions about the sort of sites they are accessing. Just look at the Firefox 3 beta for an example.
But anti-virus software? It's resource hungry and expensive. Honestly, don't bother. Just know what you're downloading and take proper precautions. And help others do the same.
Crikey... I honestly had no idea we had a space agency. What do they do all day?
Just push them over. Apparently, it's hard for a penguin to get back up again when it's on its back.
...will it blend?
Well, that's the way God made them.
Absolutely.
I'm fed up of the attitude that people deserve to get stung because they couldn't tell they were using a phishing site. Perhaps we know what we're looking for, but that doesn't mean less sophisticated web users do.
The web browser is the window onto the internet- it should do everything it can to alert the user if they are using an unsafe site. The more layers of technology the better. EV Certificates, site blacklisting, etc etc.
Also, we need to shake off the idea that "the lock icon means you're safe". All it means is the connection is secure; you could still be on a phishing site.
Browsers should do more to encourage people to check what site they are on before they enter their info. I reckon Firefox 3 has got the right idea. Firefox 3 beta has a 'site info' icon right next to the address bar. You can click this at any time to find out what site you're connected to, if the connection is secure, and to learn if you have visited the site before.
We'll never stop phishing or any type of fraud, but browser developers need to get their finger out and wake up to the fact that there's a lot of people out there who don't know how to protect themselves. It doesn't mean they're stupid and they certainly don't deserve to get phished.
Nokia fanboys. Always going on about how their phones are better.
...they should give him a free HD-DVD drive
Must be a Windows-specific thing. On OS X, Software Update just offered me up iTunes 7.6 and the new QT as separate items. I've installed iTunes but not QT. All seems to be running fine.
In order to ensure I comply fully with the copyright law, I will not rip CDs to my computer.
Instead, I'll download the music from Kazaa.
Seattle's firework display is powered by the same computer that hosts the XBOX live service
Give them time guys, they'll fix the problems one at a time.
To the contrary:
"It's a cat-and-mouse game. We try to stay ahead. People will try to break in, and it's our job to stop them breaking in" -Steve Jobs, Tuesday 18th September 2007
Link: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9781162-7.html
I think you might have been mistaken with Apple's earlier statement around iPhone hacking, i.e. shoe-horning 3rd party native apps onto the iPhone. Here, Apple have said they are taking a "neutral stance" on iPhone hacking. In short, iPhone 'hacking' and 'unlocking' refer to different things.
Link: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/09/11/apple_not_opposed_to_native_iphone_app_development_report.html
I can imagine why. I'm one of those people. I have installed on this Mac NeoOffice, OpenOffice.org, and Microsoft Office:Mac 2004. I have followed the development of Office:Mac 2008 via the MSDN Mac Blog and various other sites and I'm looking forward to its release. I fully intend to purchase it when it comes out later this year. Why? Because I prefer it. Just looking at Office:Mac 2004, it looks more Mac-native than other office suites I've tried. I find it more responsive. I like using it. I still fire up NeoOffice from time to time, for light database work, but I don't like its word processor and I don't like its spreadsheet application. OpenOffice.org bugs me slightly, I just feel awkward using it. It is because I'm used to MS Office? Maybe. But I don't like its dependence on X11 and I don't like the fact that the title of the software is a web address. What's wrong with 'OpenOffice'? Do we need '.org' at the end? My car isn't a Ford.com, my cereal of choice isn't Kellogs.com... It's possible to buy a Mac and still use, and like using, Microsoft software. I use MSN Messenger to keep in touch with faraway friends. I know I could use Adium, and I did for awhile. But I didn't like the interface. iChat AV looks nice but none of my friends are on AIM and only a few have Macs. It's not because I'm not smart that I use MS software on my Mac. I genuinely prefer it, I think it's polished to a high standard compared to the free alternatives and I'm awaiting Office:Mac 2008 with intent.
The Allow Starts Now
...but not in a meaningful way
Ah, the Mac Pro. Apple released a firmware update that added a BIOS emulation module, thus tricking Windows into thinking it was booting off a PC with BIOS. There's a very brief paragraph here: http://www.winxponmac.com/Apple_Bootcamp/Apple_Boo tcamp.html that explains this, sort of
With this in mind, Boot Camp would not have been needed in your case.
Out of curiosity, what boot loader do you use?
Not true. Windows requires BIOS to boot from. Macs use the more modern EFI. Apple releases Boot Camp as it emulates a BIOS environment for Windows to boot. Prior to Boot Camp, a competition was held to see if anyone could get Windows to boot on the first Intel Mac- which was the iMac. The winner of the (non-Apple supported) competition scooped something in the region of $13,000 It involved a lot of hacking to get it done, but it worked. Boot Camp does this without the user having to hack anything.
You show an incredible level of ignorance. I would suggest you research just how many studios actually use FCP before 'assuming' only drag and drop kiddies use it. Where do you source your information from?
Sort of.
Final Cut 3 was PPC only, and you're right wouldn't run on x86.
Apple then released Final Cut 3.5, which wasn't just a universal binary of the same app, it had additional features, too. Soundtrack and LiveType are also two components that received quite an overhaul.
So there is also that to consider.
OK, here we go. You own the physical media, the CD rom. The software is owned by Microsoft. It is an asset of theirs, but an intangible one. Therefore, MS can assign to it whatever cash value they please in their financials, under 'Intangible assets' You do not own the software. MS still do. You paid money for a licence, to use the software in the way MS allow you to within that licence.
Intangible assets do not have to be depreciated. Brand names, intellectual property and so on are not tangible. A lender, for example, could not take a legal charge over such assets, as they do not have a net book value. They do, however, have a value to the company, and that is intangible. Something free from balance sheet inclusion.
The download counter does not count the setup files downloaded via the update mechanism