Are you nuts? Have you seen the resale value for Macs on Ebay? Assuming your Mac is a G4, you could have probably got ~$175 or 200 for it on eBay, and there are people willing to pay that much for them. For a G3, around $75 for it.
Yeah, but the parent's point was that you can buy the single computer license and install it on as many computers as you want (illegally of course). There are no license keys and no activation schemes in OS X whatsoever, and considering Jobs poked fun at those very aspects of Windows during the Conference, I somehow doubt they will be present in Leopard. My Powermac G4 technically isn't licensed for OS X (bought it second hand, other guy had a family pack for Tiger with it installed on the G4, never gave me the box+license) yet there is no way Apple could tell this on their end.
"Has anyone tested their willingness to sell to generic x86 owners?"
I somehow doubt a local computer shop, or even an Apple retail store, is going to make youshow them a receipt for an Apple computer before selling you a copy of OS X.... I can't think of anyway they could possibly tell what kind or brand of computer you have sitting in your office at home.
Are you bloody retarded? There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this release (or the final release) will run on generic PCs (in-fact, from what I've heard, Apple is going to make it even more difficult this time around). The bloody paragraphed size summary right at the top of this page says that there was an agreement not to release it onto p2p networks, and the linked article (not sure why I'm mentioning this, if you can't handle reading a paragraph long summary, I somehow doubt you bothered reading the article) goes into more details on this agreement. I have yet to see Steve Jobs blow up over a leak...that is generally done by Apple's legal department, and if you even had a tiny sliver of legal sense, you would know that they would actually need to find out who leaked it before they sue anyone, so again, there is no indication this was planned....
I always thought reading was more enjoyable than writing personally...I don't understand how everyone on Slashdot finds the former so difficult to do but can blather on for paragraphs when commenting, often making themselves look like total morons.
If you pay $199, you get a family license, which you can then install on 5 computers in your house. That is one thing I like about Apple. To upgrade 5 PCs from Win2000 to the now 5 years old WinXP, I'd have to pay $1000 (don't you think Microsoft could lower the prices a bit, it's not like XP has really changed all that much recently??? I've never seen a company that can do absolutely nothing with their product line for so long yet not lower prices...), whereas for the only 1.5 year old Tiger, it would cost a fifth of that.
I have used PPC drivers for both my printer and scanner on my Intel Mac Mini with no problems whatsoever through rosetta. I'm sure x86 to x86_64 won't be a big issue.
There has been some complaints (from myself and many others) about Fan noise with the Intel Mac Minis. It admittedly isn't as big an issue as most of the other ones mentioned in the article, but I got my Mini, and for the first few days, I could hear my Mini if I put my ear on it, and then at my desk, then standing a couple of feet from my desk, and finally outside of the room after a month or so. There was quite a few people complaining about this, on many different forums across the internet.
I had to fight to get my computer serviced! I had to take it to numerous different authorized repair shops.
Oh, and my optical drive was bad as well, but this doesn't seem to be a widespread problem
I love Intel's graphics cards for that very reason. I don't play games, I don't do game development, I don't do CAD work, etc etc. I simply enjoy having the OS X eye candy with the neat dashboard effects, and all that fun stuff, and Intel's cards can handle all of this and is also way less expensive than Nvidia or ATI, which are extreme overkill for me. For regular desktop work with fun eye candy, there is no difference between my Mom's iMac with a Radeon chipset and my Mac Mini with an Intel chipset.
I think people like myself are Intel's main market.
So? Anything could happen in the future...Microsoft could bundle spyware with Windows even. I'm just saying that Google would have no reason currently to label their own software as spyware, because it isn't spyware, so your prediction is probably right, but not for the reasons you implied. Microsoft could do the same thing with MSN, and Yahoo! could intentionally not label their spyware infested toolbar as spyware, but until they or Google actually do something to that nature, this conversation is pointless. That was my point.
Name me one Google product that sends your data to Google without your permission, and without you having to manually turn on the feature (as is the case with Google Desktop).
If you would kindly re-read his comment, you would see that he said "Would be nice if, like their Adult Content filter for images, you could simply set your Google to not even ask you if you wanted to continue, but block out these sites entirely (remember other people use your computer too)".
So as you can see, he is saying it should be an option that you have to manually turn on.
No, they're saying that the particular website has been reported to the Stop Badware coalition, and MAY contain spyware. If the site has actually been falsely reported to the coalition, Google still isn't lying per se. I'm not sure if this would protect them or not though.
Limewire not only eliminated all spyware from their product a long time ago, they have opensourced Limewire, so chances are they wouldn't include spyware in a product where suspecting users could go and look at the source code. There is also Frostwire, which is a fork of Limewire, and has no spyware.
Why? Most OS X software that people might want to run on Linux or BSD is available on Windows, and Wine is already fairly mature. The "OS X wine" would be behind by a long shot.
You mean the content they push you off their own website to see?
I've asked this a couple of times now. Could someone please point out specifically which section of the copyright act Google is not in compliance with by linking to other peoples' articles?
And could you all please quit with this evil crap? Calling any company evil makes you sound like a paranoid nutcase.
Yes, but why would they pay when hyperlinks aren't an infringement of copyright? To the best of my knowledge, links aren't covered under the copyright act.
What you just said is utter bullshit, plain and simple. Google News only links to news that is available for free online in the first place, and furthermore, it links to the original news article, not a Google copy. Most news sites operate based on advertising income, and under the assumption that the ads will make it profitable for a news site to show those stories. Google News drives people to those news sites, increasing advertising revenue.
Or is it your position that hyperlinks are illegal? How about Google Web search itself? Should I pay Slashdot for the right to link to one of their free web pages? Or is it too "Napster like" to link to free web pages?
You may not view it as right, but until you actually say how exactly Google is infringing AP's copyrights, it doesn't really matter...
Yeah, there's a major difference. The NYT and Washington Post reproduce entire articles, Google reproduces a short blurb and then directs people to the original news article. How can you not tell the difference? Since when is "freely linking" copyright infringement? Where in the copyright act does it make a hyperlink an infringement of copyright? Furthermore, would a short 2 or 3 sentence blurb that is designed to get people to view the original news story (and thus click on their ads) not fall under the doctrine of fair use? Google didn't get caught with their "pants down", Google has been pretty consistent with their stance that what they do falls under fair use. If it doesn't, then all search engines are doomed, because Google News does to news sites the same thing Google does to web sites.
Some webmail providers allow backup to a client. Every week or so, I sync Thunderbird to my Gmail account, so that I have 2 copies of every single one of my emails (one on Gmail, one in Thunderbird).
Slashdot Mirror
Are you nuts? Have you seen the resale value for Macs on Ebay? Assuming your Mac is a G4, you could have probably got ~$175 or 200 for it on eBay, and there are people willing to pay that much for them. For a G3, around $75 for it.
Yeah, but the parent's point was that you can buy the single computer license and install it on as many computers as you want (illegally of course). There are no license keys and no activation schemes in OS X whatsoever, and considering Jobs poked fun at those very aspects of Windows during the Conference, I somehow doubt they will be present in Leopard. My Powermac G4 technically isn't licensed for OS X (bought it second hand, other guy had a family pack for Tiger with it installed on the G4, never gave me the box+license) yet there is no way Apple could tell this on their end.
"Has anyone tested their willingness to sell to generic x86 owners?"
I somehow doubt a local computer shop, or even an Apple retail store, is going to make youshow them a receipt for an Apple computer before selling you a copy of OS X.... I can't think of anyway they could possibly tell what kind or brand of computer you have sitting in your office at home.
Are you bloody retarded? There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this release (or the final release) will run on generic PCs (in-fact, from what I've heard, Apple is going to make it even more difficult this time around). The bloody paragraphed size summary right at the top of this page says that there was an agreement not to release it onto p2p networks, and the linked article (not sure why I'm mentioning this, if you can't handle reading a paragraph long summary, I somehow doubt you bothered reading the article) goes into more details on this agreement. I have yet to see Steve Jobs blow up over a leak...that is generally done by Apple's legal department, and if you even had a tiny sliver of legal sense, you would know that they would actually need to find out who leaked it before they sue anyone, so again, there is no indication this was planned....
I always thought reading was more enjoyable than writing personally...I don't understand how everyone on Slashdot finds the former so difficult to do but can blather on for paragraphs when commenting, often making themselves look like total morons.
If you pay $199, you get a family license, which you can then install on 5 computers in your house. That is one thing I like about Apple. To upgrade 5 PCs from Win2000 to the now 5 years old WinXP, I'd have to pay $1000 (don't you think Microsoft could lower the prices a bit, it's not like XP has really changed all that much recently??? I've never seen a company that can do absolutely nothing with their product line for so long yet not lower prices...), whereas for the only 1.5 year old Tiger, it would cost a fifth of that.
I have used PPC drivers for both my printer and scanner on my Intel Mac Mini with no problems whatsoever through rosetta. I'm sure x86 to x86_64 won't be a big issue.
You must be new here...
There has been some complaints (from myself and many others) about Fan noise with the Intel Mac Minis. It admittedly isn't as big an issue as most of the other ones mentioned in the article, but I got my Mini, and for the first few days, I could hear my Mini if I put my ear on it, and then at my desk, then standing a couple of feet from my desk, and finally outside of the room after a month or so. There was quite a few people complaining about this, on many different forums across the internet.
I had to fight to get my computer serviced! I had to take it to numerous different authorized repair shops.
Oh, and my optical drive was bad as well, but this doesn't seem to be a widespread problem
I love Intel's graphics cards for that very reason. I don't play games, I don't do game development, I don't do CAD work, etc etc. I simply enjoy having the OS X eye candy with the neat dashboard effects, and all that fun stuff, and Intel's cards can handle all of this and is also way less expensive than Nvidia or ATI, which are extreme overkill for me. For regular desktop work with fun eye candy, there is no difference between my Mom's iMac with a Radeon chipset and my Mac Mini with an Intel chipset.
I think people like myself are Intel's main market.
Ummm, what about the ads Google displays on their own website, and collects 100% of the advertising revenue from? Are they still the middleman there?
So? Anything could happen in the future...Microsoft could bundle spyware with Windows even. I'm just saying that Google would have no reason currently to label their own software as spyware, because it isn't spyware, so your prediction is probably right, but not for the reasons you implied. Microsoft could do the same thing with MSN, and Yahoo! could intentionally not label their spyware infested toolbar as spyware, but until they or Google actually do something to that nature, this conversation is pointless. That was my point.
Name me one Google product that sends your data to Google without your permission, and without you having to manually turn on the feature (as is the case with Google Desktop).
If you would kindly re-read his comment, you would see that he said "Would be nice if, like their Adult Content filter for images, you could simply set your Google to not even ask you if you wanted to continue, but block out these sites entirely (remember other people use your computer too)".
So as you can see, he is saying it should be an option that you have to manually turn on.
Well Dell distributes Google Desktop now, and knowing Dell, we can all assume it is spyware.
No, they're saying that the particular website has been reported to the Stop Badware coalition, and MAY contain spyware. If the site has actually been falsely reported to the coalition, Google still isn't lying per se. I'm not sure if this would protect them or not though.
Limewire not only eliminated all spyware from their product a long time ago, they have opensourced Limewire, so chances are they wouldn't include spyware in a product where suspecting users could go and look at the source code. There is also Frostwire, which is a fork of Limewire, and has no spyware.
Why? Most OS X software that people might want to run on Linux or BSD is available on Windows, and Wine is already fairly mature. The "OS X wine" would be behind by a long shot.
You mean the content they push you off their own website to see?
I've asked this a couple of times now. Could someone please point out specifically which section of the copyright act Google is not in compliance with by linking to other peoples' articles?
And could you all please quit with this evil crap? Calling any company evil makes you sound like a paranoid nutcase.
Why would Google need to pay to be able to do this exactly?
Yes, but why would they pay when hyperlinks aren't an infringement of copyright? To the best of my knowledge, links aren't covered under the copyright act.
What you just said is utter bullshit, plain and simple. Google News only links to news that is available for free online in the first place, and furthermore, it links to the original news article, not a Google copy. Most news sites operate based on advertising income, and under the assumption that the ads will make it profitable for a news site to show those stories. Google News drives people to those news sites, increasing advertising revenue.
Or is it your position that hyperlinks are illegal? How about Google Web search itself? Should I pay Slashdot for the right to link to one of their free web pages? Or is it too "Napster like" to link to free web pages?
You may not view it as right, but until you actually say how exactly Google is infringing AP's copyrights, it doesn't really matter...
Yeah, there's a major difference. The NYT and Washington Post reproduce entire articles, Google reproduces a short blurb and then directs people to the original news article. How can you not tell the difference? Since when is "freely linking" copyright infringement? Where in the copyright act does it make a hyperlink an infringement of copyright? Furthermore, would a short 2 or 3 sentence blurb that is designed to get people to view the original news story (and thus click on their ads) not fall under the doctrine of fair use? Google didn't get caught with their "pants down", Google has been pretty consistent with their stance that what they do falls under fair use. If it doesn't, then all search engines are doomed, because Google News does to news sites the same thing Google does to web sites.
Some webmail providers allow backup to a client. Every week or so, I sync Thunderbird to my Gmail account, so that I have 2 copies of every single one of my emails (one on Gmail, one in Thunderbird).
Yeah, I agree. When they release the Intel Mac Towers, they should do a low end model, and then also sell their normal high end models.
The Mac Minis have crappy video yes, but the iMacs don't. Or by low end, do you mean the Mac Mini specifically?