Broadband Reports has frequent posts about this very scenario. From what I've read, many times after system upgrades Comcast will leave many channels un-encrypted for testing purposes for months at a time, so you're receiving many Clear-QAM (unencrypted digital cable) that may not necessarily be there permanently. Often, these channels will move around and require a re-scan, disappear, be replaced with other channels, etc. The number of channels that are un-encrypted may vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. In the end, Comcast is only required to send local over-the-air channels unencrypted to your TV set. Otherwise, Comcast isn't responsible for other channels they may be inadvertently leaving "open" for people to see. Always check to see what the official listings are for your area, and those are the channels you will receive without the inconsistencies you mentioned in your post.
If you need to deploy, maintain, and manage a medium to large number of Macs in an enterprise environment, Casper Suite by JAMF Software is the way to go. Hands down the most comprehensive suite out there for Macs.
Apple's Exchange support is provided by the "Exchange Web Services" that is only available in Exchange 2007. There's really no other option for Apple to connect to for older versions of Exchange Server.
Exchange support in Snow Leopard uses EWS to connect to the Exchange Server.
EWS (Exchange Web Services) is not WebDAV!
The number of misconceptions perpetrated on this thread make me wonder how many people have actually looked at either Exchange Server 2007/2010 or Mail.app in Snow Leopard.
My mom has a stash of these in her basement - she does a lot of typing and swears by them. Some of them are almost 20 years old. You can buy new ones from http://pckeyboards.com/ - they bought out the license/patents from Lexmark (who had received them from IBM.
So I have cable with a QAM tuner TV. The guy at Circuit City said I could get digital cable without having to rent a box from the cable company with it. Turns out, the only digital channels I get are the ones that come in over the air. Is/was this supposed to change on Feb 17?
Nope. This switch over was for over-the-air only, and remains so even with this new legislation. Your first mistake was listening to the guy at Circuit City. There's a really good chance that most cable companies will never send anything over in Clear QAM other than your over-the-air stations. Everything else will most likely remain encrypted, and only received with a cable box or cablecard compatible set top box or TV.
I've heard (but not sure about) there is a 5 year moratorium on cable companies turning off their analog (cable-ready) signals. Who knows what will happen after that point.
Shouldn't this lawsuit be against Opera Mini, since they reformat through their own proxy server? As far as I know, the iPhone uses WebKit and does not modify pages in any way, other than scaling to screen size.
I think these patents that specify "hand held device" are going to be extinct soon. The iPhone OS and Android are full blown operating systems, and the hardware they run on are more like handheld computers than anything else.
I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and I believe this is one of those cases. I went back over some notes/documentation I had, and I was confusing the ability to boot off an USB drive (which hasn't always been there either and was a concern with the MacBook Air) with target disk mode. You would hope that this handy feature is something that Apple includes in the future over USB, since many of their documentation pages talk about it. It would also be interesting to see if the "Target Disk Mode" button is still there in the Startup Disk System Preference pane.
It seems a lot of people are upset with the glossy screens being the only option in the new MacBook models. I was a doubter myself but the glass displays on the iMac (20" and 24") are relatively glare free. The LED backlights are very bright and compensate for most of the glare. I have one right now next to a Samsung SyncMaster 226BW with a matte finish and the Samsung is actually showing more glare than the iMac.
What further surprises me even more is that the graphic design and photography faculty that I support have been requesting the glossy option on the MacBook Pro's for the last few years. The few I asked about it feel the display is better with color than the matte finish. Of course I'm sure what they really wish they could get is one of the pro LaCie or NEC monitors, but the MacBook Pro glossy displays seem to satisfy their needs on a laptop.
I have a feeling that they will be updated at some point. In addition, I think they are leaving these the same to satisfy the "pros" who want matte finishes on their laptops- I'm pretty sure that option is still there for the 17".
I've always been a fan of firewire, but I think its in danger of being relegated to a "specialty" connector. Yes most of the MiniDV cameras are firewire, however, the majority of the new DVD, hard drive, and flash based cameras, they are all USB 2.0. Just browsing Best Buy.com only 9 out of 60-70 camcorders offered were MiniDV, and only a few of the non-MiniDV based cameras offered firewire.
I think Apple figures that if you want firewire for video editing, that you'll either: stick with your existing hardware, go with a MacBook Pro or desktop model, or end up upgrading your video camera altogether. In addition, the recent trends with video have people doing more and more with shooting low quality video with their point and shoots and uploading to a video site. Less and less videotaping, downloading to computer, edit, burn to DVD is being done these days. The newest iMovie illustrates this as well. "Quick and dirty" is how a lot of video is done these days.
It also doesn't help that most of the PC industry, except Sony (aka iLink) has shunned firewire, and you very rarely see it as an option on any new desktop or laptop.
It's also well known that people who sell cell phones are compensated more than regular employees. This is true in most retail stores. What exactly do your cashiers make and what state do you live in? Do you live in a state that has a higher minimum wage than the federal limit? Just saying that your cashiers make more than minimum doesn't count for much when we don't know where this is. I know a man who makes $9 an hour at Wal-Mart, however the state minimum is $7.50. Even at full-time, he still lives at home because he can't afford not to.
OK I have nothing against cashiers- I was one for several years. However, how much do the people here expect a cashier to make? I worked at a unionized supermarket in the Northeast, and made $2.00 over minimum wage when I moved on from the job. Others lower on the seniority totem pole made less than I did. If I was working at Walmart and making over $1.50 over minimum wage, I wouldn't feel that's too shabby - especially if I'm in a part of the country with a lower cost of living.
If the man you know wants to live on his own, perhaps he should find a job that pays more - or find room mates to share the cost of housing. Being a cashier at pretty much any store isn't going to guarantee you a high amount of income and growth.
Not everybody who has email also has web access. Putting the unsubscribe facility on an entirely separate system is unacceptable. Requiring people to jump through hoops to unsubscribe is typical spammer behaviour.
Then the question becomes how do you sign up for the list in the first place? If you are required to go to a web site to sign up, then, I don't find it unreasonable to unsubscribe in the same manner. If subscribing to the list is as easy as sending an e-mail to the mailing list (oh how I miss the good old days of majordomo and listservs), then, yes, requiring you to go a website is rather unreasonable.
I've found that most mailing lists these days have sign-ups using some type of web page.
Which is exactly why Leopard will be the last version of Mac OS X that Apple sells at retail. How much is someone willing to bet that you'll have to purchase entire OS updates in the future via some type of Software Update mechanism?
I love how these companies are "making a statement", but seriously, what statement does it make? How does selling a computer without the OS installed great for consumers? Apple really doesn't care about hobbiests on on OSX86.org trying to get this to work themselves. However, if the loophole is the EULA in the retail box, then, I don't believe they'll continue to let the loophole exist.
Get used to running only Leopard on these computers. There won't be a "retail boxed" version of Snow Leopard out there in the future, and these small "clone" hardware companies are almost guaranteeing it.
When you keep designing architectures like this you eventually hit a wall and start to stagnate due to the law of diminishing returns. So, while AMD basically did nothing essentially new with their architecture over the years, it gave Intel ample time to design, *from the ground up*, 5 new processor architectures : The Pentium-M, Core, Core 2, Nehalem, and Atom.
I don't disagree with your AMD analysis, however, your post seems to directly contradict a previous comment on this article that the Core processors were derivatives of the Pentium III. If that's the case, then Intel's designs have been similarly "bolted on" and not designed from the ground up either. I tend to agree more with the simple theory that both companies have made mis-steps, but that Intel has the fabs, money, and size to make up for their mistakes much more quickly, and without as much of an effect on their bottom line.
You don't have to open a pack of software to render the license valid. You merely have to possess it. For most business IT departments for example, they'll buy tons of licenses (usually not even individually wrapped - 1 piece of paper can license hundreds of copies) of software and then do all their installs off of a single piece of media. As long as a copy, shrinkwrapper or not, is provided, then it's a valid license.
Yes, but that's because the license they buy allows them to do so, and install from one media source. That's part of the arrangement between the software company and the end user when the license is purchased. Where is the arrangement that Apple has with Psystar when they purchased the software that allows them to do this?
By this reasoning, your recognizing that the stipulations that are attached to software licenses and EULA's are valid. That's why the IT department will buy a site license for software- because the license allows them to do what they need without modifying the software. If your IT department decided to buy 50 individual copies of software, then crack it so they only had to use one serial number, then distribute it to computers, then provide the user with a box (with a different serial number), then the department would still be subject to civil action by the software company. You did not use the software in the manner that the license was agreed upon.
Psystar is taking a retail boxed copy of Mac OS X, modifying it, and then installing it on computers they sell. Several portions of the operating systems have been modified in a way that violates Apple's software license. Then Psystar gives you a boxed copy and says "hey this covers the license". However, the license doesn't cover the changes that have already been made to the computer. You do hold a valid license, but not for the software you are using. You basically now possess two copies of Mac OS X- one distributed and modified without permission (and invalid), and one legal version, not currently in use.
A way out of all of these licenses and EULA's is that you have the right to a refund if you don't agree to them. Apple should offer to take the retail boxed portion of the purchase and offer a return/refund for the copy of Mac OS X they own. These folks never agreed to the license, and I feel have the right to get a refund from Apple. Psystar should still be shut down through civil action.
My point was that there is a very good likelihood that if you are buying a Psystar computer, then for whatever reason you've made a choice not to be an Apple customer. Whether it's because you feel they don't make hardware that suits you, you don't like Steve Jobs, you don't like the pricing on Apple products, or for whatever reason, you've made a choice not to be an Apple customer. So at that point, I don't think Apple is worried about making a future sale by taking away your Psystar computer. It's very unlikely they would ever buy a real Apple product if they've decided to buy an unsupported "cloned" version of the original that may or may not work right.
I think we're agreeing and disagreeing with each other at the same time. If that makes any sense...
You have given the reason yourself: You can buy a Fort and rip out engine and put it into an VW.
You misread my statement. I was using it as an argument to the fact that Apple has a monopoly on "Mac OS X" computers. Ford also has a monopoly on Ford engines. I have no issue with someone ruining a VW by putting a Ford engine in it and there is no law preventing you from doing that.
What they want is for Apple to stop trying to tell people what to do with their products once they have bought them.
The problem is that you are not receiving an Apple product. As much as I disagree with it, I have no issue with someone buying Mac OS X for themselves, going to OSX86.org, and building a hackintosh on their own. The problem I have is that Psystar is not selling you Mac OS X on the computer you are buying from them. Then they give you a copy of the Retail disk as well, and then try and say it's legal. What's on the computer doesn't match what's on the disk. You can't re-install it from the retail disk, and they don't provide a "driver" or restore disk (like other OEM's do). The modified version of Mac OS X on the Psystar computer is not really Mac OS X. I consider that fraud.
...and if Apple doesn't like it, it should stop selling the products
I agree. I think they should stop selling the retail versions of Mac OS X. That resolves a good part of the situation instantly. If they stop selling retail disks, and they don't sell OEM disks at all, then it becomes much harder to use many of the excuses people are coming up with on why Psystar is right. Too bad Psystar is going to ruin it for everyone else who wants to run Mac OS X on Apple hardware.
Yes, Apple makes money off their sales of Mac OS X. However, I think at the same time, its a service they provide to Mac owners that allow them to upgrade to the latest operating system for a fee. It's too bad others seem to think they can take advantage of this, and create their own market from this service.
Alright. Label me a troll. A fan-boy. A zealot. I don't care.
Why can't a company create a product for the market they want? What gives us the right to buy a product that clearly states what it's for, then, get upset about when it doesn't work the way that we want it? Why do we feel that we have the right to create a market for a product that the creator didn't intend to?
Seriously.
Apple created Mac OS X. They specifically state that it's for Apple computers. They aren't hiding it from you. They made the decision to make this software for their hardware only. What's wrong with that? Why can't a company limit it's own market?
I don't want to hear this "Apple is monopoly" bullshit. They aren't a monopoly, they are a brand. Ford has a "monopoly" on Ford cars that run Ford engines and Ford computers and Ford seatbelts. Sony has a "monopoly" on the Sony operating system that's runs on the Sony Playstation. The operating system is an Apple product for Apple hardware. They just happen to also sell it in a box. Just because its in a box, on a shelf, and you can buy it, doesn't give you the right to decide that you can change what its for. No one is forcing consumers to buy Apple computers. There are other competitors in the market. Nope, no monopoly here.
It's just so aggravating to read the posts. Fuck Psystar. They deliberately tried to tired to sell a product created and sold by another company in a way they didn't want it to be done. Why shouldn't they go down?
Really. Someone explain it to me? Why is Psystar entitled to do this? Why are we entitled to install Mac OS X on hardware Apple tells us not to?
Anyone?
Is it anything more than people who just want to get their way. Why doesn't Apple make a headless Mac for me? Why can't I run Mac OS X on my Dell? Why why why... I want I want I want... wahhhh...
It's like reading a collective bunch of three year olds. Apple doesn't want to sell you their product, for whatever reason they see fit. Shut up and deal with it. It's not an issue of EULA's and copyright and DRM. It's the fact that people are just pissed of they can't get their way. It's why this country is going to shit... people going out of their way- way beyond the realms of common sense and moderation- to obtain their way. Your sense of entitlement sickens me. The fact that Apple is successful without you getting what you want pisses you off even more.
Honestly, you can replace Apple with any other company. It doesn't matter.
Operating systems exist out there that are licensed that you can do whatever you want with them. Go try one out. If you don't like it, learn to code so you can make it something you like.
And yes, I have more custom built Linux systems in my home and in my place of employment than I do Mac or Windows systems. So don't give me a lecture about free software or the GPL.
If I bought one of these and Apple caused it to become a huge paperweight, why would I then go buy a computer from them?
If you bought one of these, you already didn't buy a computer from them, so what would make Apple think you would want to buy one from them afterwards?
Slashdot Mirror
I also watch C-SPAN. That's funded by cable providers and available only to their subscribers
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx
Broadband Reports has frequent posts about this very scenario. From what I've read, many times after system upgrades Comcast will leave many channels un-encrypted for testing purposes for months at a time, so you're receiving many Clear-QAM (unencrypted digital cable) that may not necessarily be there permanently. Often, these channels will move around and require a re-scan, disappear, be replaced with other channels, etc. The number of channels that are un-encrypted may vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. In the end, Comcast is only required to send local over-the-air channels unencrypted to your TV set. Otherwise, Comcast isn't responsible for other channels they may be inadvertently leaving "open" for people to see. Always check to see what the official listings are for your area, and those are the channels you will receive without the inconsistencies you mentioned in your post.
If you need to deploy, maintain, and manage a medium to large number of Macs in an enterprise environment, Casper Suite by JAMF Software is the way to go. Hands down the most comprehensive suite out there for Macs.
Apple's Exchange support is provided by the "Exchange Web Services" that is only available in Exchange 2007. There's really no other option for Apple to connect to for older versions of Exchange Server.
Repeat after me...
Apple is not using ActiveSync in Snow Leopard.
Exchange support in Snow Leopard uses EWS to connect to the Exchange Server.
EWS (Exchange Web Services) is not WebDAV!
The number of misconceptions perpetrated on this thread make me wonder how many people have actually looked at either Exchange Server 2007/2010 or Mail.app in Snow Leopard.
That is all.
My mom has a stash of these in her basement - she does a lot of typing and swears by them. Some of them are almost 20 years old. You can buy new ones from http://pckeyboards.com/ - they bought out the license/patents from Lexmark (who had received them from IBM.
Link for Safari 3:
http://support.apple.com/downloads/#internet
Clearly labeled as "Looking for Safari 3? Download here" at bottom of the Safari 4 download page.
Nope. This switch over was for over-the-air only, and remains so even with this new legislation. Your first mistake was listening to the guy at Circuit City. There's a really good chance that most cable companies will never send anything over in Clear QAM other than your over-the-air stations. Everything else will most likely remain encrypted, and only received with a cable box or cablecard compatible set top box or TV.
I've heard (but not sure about) there is a 5 year moratorium on cable companies turning off their analog (cable-ready) signals. Who knows what will happen after that point.
Shouldn't this lawsuit be against Opera Mini, since they reformat through their own proxy server? As far as I know, the iPhone uses WebKit and does not modify pages in any way, other than scaling to screen size.
I think these patents that specify "hand held device" are going to be extinct soon. The iPhone OS and Android are full blown operating systems, and the hardware they run on are more like handheld computers than anything else.
True, but I think Apple is one of few, or only, computer companies that ship all it's computers with Gigabit Ethernet NIC's.
I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and I believe this is one of those cases. I went back over some notes/documentation I had, and I was confusing the ability to boot off an USB drive (which hasn't always been there either and was a concern with the MacBook Air) with target disk mode. You would hope that this handy feature is something that Apple includes in the future over USB, since many of their documentation pages talk about it. It would also be interesting to see if the "Target Disk Mode" button is still there in the Startup Disk System Preference pane.
It seems a lot of people are upset with the glossy screens being the only option in the new MacBook models. I was a doubter myself but the glass displays on the iMac (20" and 24") are relatively glare free. The LED backlights are very bright and compensate for most of the glare. I have one right now next to a Samsung SyncMaster 226BW with a matte finish and the Samsung is actually showing more glare than the iMac.
What further surprises me even more is that the graphic design and photography faculty that I support have been requesting the glossy option on the MacBook Pro's for the last few years. The few I asked about it feel the display is better with color than the matte finish. Of course I'm sure what they really wish they could get is one of the pro LaCie or NEC monitors, but the MacBook Pro glossy displays seem to satisfy their needs on a laptop.
I have a feeling that they will be updated at some point. In addition, I think they are leaving these the same to satisfy the "pros" who want matte finishes on their laptops- I'm pretty sure that option is still there for the 17".
I've always been a fan of firewire, but I think its in danger of being relegated to a "specialty" connector. Yes most of the MiniDV cameras are firewire, however, the majority of the new DVD, hard drive, and flash based cameras, they are all USB 2.0. Just browsing Best Buy.com only 9 out of 60-70 camcorders offered were MiniDV, and only a few of the non-MiniDV based cameras offered firewire.
I think Apple figures that if you want firewire for video editing, that you'll either: stick with your existing hardware, go with a MacBook Pro or desktop model, or end up upgrading your video camera altogether. In addition, the recent trends with video have people doing more and more with shooting low quality video with their point and shoots and uploading to a video site. Less and less videotaping, downloading to computer, edit, burn to DVD is being done these days. The newest iMovie illustrates this as well. "Quick and dirty" is how a lot of video is done these days.
It also doesn't help that most of the PC industry, except Sony (aka iLink) has shunned firewire, and you very rarely see it as an option on any new desktop or laptop.
Yes and target mode via USB has been available for a while now.
OK I have nothing against cashiers- I was one for several years. However, how much do the people here expect a cashier to make? I worked at a unionized supermarket in the Northeast, and made $2.00 over minimum wage when I moved on from the job. Others lower on the seniority totem pole made less than I did. If I was working at Walmart and making over $1.50 over minimum wage, I wouldn't feel that's too shabby - especially if I'm in a part of the country with a lower cost of living.
If the man you know wants to live on his own, perhaps he should find a job that pays more - or find room mates to share the cost of housing. Being a cashier at pretty much any store isn't going to guarantee you a high amount of income and growth.
Then the question becomes how do you sign up for the list in the first place? If you are required to go to a web site to sign up, then, I don't find it unreasonable to unsubscribe in the same manner. If subscribing to the list is as easy as sending an e-mail to the mailing list (oh how I miss the good old days of majordomo and listservs), then, yes, requiring you to go a website is rather unreasonable.
I've found that most mailing lists these days have sign-ups using some type of web page.
Which is exactly why Leopard will be the last version of Mac OS X that Apple sells at retail. How much is someone willing to bet that you'll have to purchase entire OS updates in the future via some type of Software Update mechanism?
I love how these companies are "making a statement", but seriously, what statement does it make? How does selling a computer without the OS installed great for consumers? Apple really doesn't care about hobbiests on on OSX86.org trying to get this to work themselves. However, if the loophole is the EULA in the retail box, then, I don't believe they'll continue to let the loophole exist.
Get used to running only Leopard on these computers. There won't be a "retail boxed" version of Snow Leopard out there in the future, and these small "clone" hardware companies are almost guaranteeing it.
I don't disagree with your AMD analysis, however, your post seems to directly contradict a previous comment on this article that the Core processors were derivatives of the Pentium III. If that's the case, then Intel's designs have been similarly "bolted on" and not designed from the ground up either. I tend to agree more with the simple theory that both companies have made mis-steps, but that Intel has the fabs, money, and size to make up for their mistakes much more quickly, and without as much of an effect on their bottom line.
Yes, but that's because the license they buy allows them to do so, and install from one media source. That's part of the arrangement between the software company and the end user when the license is purchased. Where is the arrangement that Apple has with Psystar when they purchased the software that allows them to do this?
By this reasoning, your recognizing that the stipulations that are attached to software licenses and EULA's are valid. That's why the IT department will buy a site license for software- because the license allows them to do what they need without modifying the software. If your IT department decided to buy 50 individual copies of software, then crack it so they only had to use one serial number, then distribute it to computers, then provide the user with a box (with a different serial number), then the department would still be subject to civil action by the software company. You did not use the software in the manner that the license was agreed upon.
Psystar is taking a retail boxed copy of Mac OS X, modifying it, and then installing it on computers they sell. Several portions of the operating systems have been modified in a way that violates Apple's software license. Then Psystar gives you a boxed copy and says "hey this covers the license". However, the license doesn't cover the changes that have already been made to the computer. You do hold a valid license, but not for the software you are using. You basically now possess two copies of Mac OS X- one distributed and modified without permission (and invalid), and one legal version, not currently in use.
A way out of all of these licenses and EULA's is that you have the right to a refund if you don't agree to them. Apple should offer to take the retail boxed portion of the purchase and offer a return/refund for the copy of Mac OS X they own. These folks never agreed to the license, and I feel have the right to get a refund from Apple. Psystar should still be shut down through civil action.
My point was that there is a very good likelihood that if you are buying a Psystar computer, then for whatever reason you've made a choice not to be an Apple customer. Whether it's because you feel they don't make hardware that suits you, you don't like Steve Jobs, you don't like the pricing on Apple products, or for whatever reason, you've made a choice not to be an Apple customer. So at that point, I don't think Apple is worried about making a future sale by taking away your Psystar computer. It's very unlikely they would ever buy a real Apple product if they've decided to buy an unsupported "cloned" version of the original that may or may not work right.
I think we're agreeing and disagreeing with each other at the same time. If that makes any sense...
You misread my statement. I was using it as an argument to the fact that Apple has a monopoly on "Mac OS X" computers. Ford also has a monopoly on Ford engines. I have no issue with someone ruining a VW by putting a Ford engine in it and there is no law preventing you from doing that.
The problem is that you are not receiving an Apple product. As much as I disagree with it, I have no issue with someone buying Mac OS X for themselves, going to OSX86.org, and building a hackintosh on their own. The problem I have is that Psystar is not selling you Mac OS X on the computer you are buying from them. Then they give you a copy of the Retail disk as well, and then try and say it's legal. What's on the computer doesn't match what's on the disk. You can't re-install it from the retail disk, and they don't provide a "driver" or restore disk (like other OEM's do). The modified version of Mac OS X on the Psystar computer is not really Mac OS X. I consider that fraud.
I agree. I think they should stop selling the retail versions of Mac OS X. That resolves a good part of the situation instantly. If they stop selling retail disks, and they don't sell OEM disks at all, then it becomes much harder to use many of the excuses people are coming up with on why Psystar is right. Too bad Psystar is going to ruin it for everyone else who wants to run Mac OS X on Apple hardware.
Yes, Apple makes money off their sales of Mac OS X. However, I think at the same time, its a service they provide to Mac owners that allow them to upgrade to the latest operating system for a fee. It's too bad others seem to think they can take advantage of this, and create their own market from this service.
Alright. Label me a troll. A fan-boy. A zealot. I don't care.
Why can't a company create a product for the market they want? What gives us the right to buy a product that clearly states what it's for, then, get upset about when it doesn't work the way that we want it? Why do we feel that we have the right to create a market for a product that the creator didn't intend to?
Seriously.
Apple created Mac OS X. They specifically state that it's for Apple computers. They aren't hiding it from you. They made the decision to make this software for their hardware only. What's wrong with that? Why can't a company limit it's own market?
I don't want to hear this "Apple is monopoly" bullshit. They aren't a monopoly, they are a brand. Ford has a "monopoly" on Ford cars that run Ford engines and Ford computers and Ford seatbelts. Sony has a "monopoly" on the Sony operating system that's runs on the Sony Playstation. The operating system is an Apple product for Apple hardware. They just happen to also sell it in a box. Just because its in a box, on a shelf, and you can buy it, doesn't give you the right to decide that you can change what its for. No one is forcing consumers to buy Apple computers. There are other competitors in the market. Nope, no monopoly here.
It's just so aggravating to read the posts. Fuck Psystar. They deliberately tried to tired to sell a product created and sold by another company in a way they didn't want it to be done. Why shouldn't they go down?
Really. Someone explain it to me? Why is Psystar entitled to do this? Why are we entitled to install Mac OS X on hardware Apple tells us not to?
Anyone?
Is it anything more than people who just want to get their way. Why doesn't Apple make a headless Mac for me? Why can't I run Mac OS X on my Dell? Why why why... I want I want I want... wahhhh...
It's like reading a collective bunch of three year olds. Apple doesn't want to sell you their product, for whatever reason they see fit. Shut up and deal with it. It's not an issue of EULA's and copyright and DRM. It's the fact that people are just pissed of they can't get their way. It's why this country is going to shit... people going out of their way- way beyond the realms of common sense and moderation- to obtain their way. Your sense of entitlement sickens me. The fact that Apple is successful without you getting what you want pisses you off even more.
Honestly, you can replace Apple with any other company. It doesn't matter.
Operating systems exist out there that are licensed that you can do whatever you want with them. Go try one out. If you don't like it, learn to code so you can make it something you like.
And yes, I have more custom built Linux systems in my home and in my place of employment than I do Mac or Windows systems. So don't give me a lecture about free software or the GPL.
I feel better now. End of rant.
If you bought one of these, you already didn't buy a computer from them, so what would make Apple think you would want to buy one from them afterwards?