Please... there has been very little added to Mac OS X at the operating system level with each new version. The new version just denotes how much more eye-candy and newer bundleware they've crammed into it. Again, not unlike a Windows service pack.
Heck, the first few versions of Mac OS X were just Apple trying to fix a lot of the stuff they broke since the transition from Mac OS 9... the Finder, print spooler, the ungodly slowness, a million and a half bugs in Classic.. I've been a Mac user regularly since 8.6, and I stuck with them (painfully) all the way through 10.2. When 10.3 was ready, I had enough of paying Apple $199 a year (to upgrade my 3 Apple computers) every single year to get a new version of the OS that would suck slightly less and not lock me out of installing stuff I need like patches to 3rd party software or printer drivers that required specific versions of OS X or required an expensive new Mac to not run dog slow because my completely unupgradeable iMac didn't have enough VRAM to take advantage of Quartz Extreme. I switched to Windows for good and haven't looked back.
For what an iMac would cost, I have a PC that I can easily upgrade the graphics card if necessary, add more internal storage, allow me to upgrade my display without having to upgrade my whole computer (for most of us working people, a $3000 Power Mac G5 quadruple core megazord isn't exactly attainable--all of Apple's computers that are affordable to us mere mortals are one-piece units), and runs Windows, which when there is an upgrade, the upgrade is meaningful in that there are real changes under the hood that improve stability and/or performance, little or no compatibility with prior versions of the OS is sacrificed. If Microsoft does release an upgrade, I don't have to pay full price because Microsoft actually offers an upgrade version (unlike Apple), Microsoft also offers multi-license discounts (like Apple), and now I'm also not locked down into the way Steve Jobs wants me to use my computer. I have a much greater selection of software I can run, hardware I can use.. I can use the digital audio player of my choice and use the music download service of my choice (even use a subscription service..which Apple doesn't even give me the choice of).
Basically, the Mac is communism. You do things their way. The way that the all-knowing uebercool Steve Jobs, the Great Leader, does. PCs running Windows are all-American..they're about freedom of choice. I can choose what hardware and what software suits me. I'm not limited by what the Great Leader tells me I can use. Strangely enough, I think that this is mirrored in the political views of their respective users... Mac users tend to be leftists who want to impose their ideals upon the rest of the world because they are "enlightened" and "know what's best" for us, Windows users tend to be more to the right and value having control over their own property.
At least Microsoft has always provided service packs for free, unlike Apple, who release a point upgrade to Mac OS X (basically a service pack) every year or so and charge $130 a pop for it, no upgrader's discount, either! And forget about forgoing an upgrade to the latest OS X point release unless you want to forfeit being able to upgrade your other software, printer drivers, etc.
...said something bad about Apple... now watch my Karma plummet!
I wonder if that means that if they gained power, it would be easier for pedophiles and zoophiles to migrate there. That would really tick off the posters here who have had trouble with IND! Then again... given the stereotypes about slashdotters......
well, duh.. that's why I keep paying the monthly fee.
But if you consider I download several hundred songs per month, if I bought them on iTMS, I'd be out several hundred dollars per month instead of fifteen.
Some people just have a bias against anything Microsoft or anything that challenges Apple. I feel sorry for you.
...that Benjamin Franklin's writing sample in his phonetic alphabet displays a markedly different pronunciation of several common words (such as "of" - it appears to rhyme with "grove") than what is commonly pronounced today. So, what is the point of changing the spelling to be phonetic today, when that pronunciation may very well change after 50, 100, 200 years... not to mention that there would have to be some agreement on which pronunciation is "standard" to begin with. Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston and lived most of his life in Philadelphia. I'd hate to imagine how the word "water" would be spelled!
What is immoral? They make a product, they set a price, they sell it. Nobody forces you to use their product. Why do they have a monopoly? There are alternatives. You don't like Windows? Run Linux. You don't like MS Word? Use WordPerfect or OpenOffice. Don't like Excel? How about Lotus 1-2-3? Outlook? There's Lotus Notes. Funny thing is, most of these products used to own a larger share of the market than Microsoft's, yet Microsoft won because they made their software easier-to-use and offered better support and volume licensing. So don't fault Microsoft for playing the game of capitalism and succeeding. You don't like it? Maybe you'd feel more at home in Cuba or North Korea, then...
I'm curious to know why iTMS is preferable! I would be broke if I had to pay a dollar for every song I wanted! Instead, I pay Virgin Digital $15/mo (less than the cost of a CD) and I can download to my heart's content (from a larger catalog than iTMS even!) and even take the music with me on my Rio Carbon. My iPod is now collecting dust on my dresser. Now, if someone were giving me Napster for free, I'd be using that!
Of course, it would be immoral to continue to use something you're not legally entitled to. It amazes me how few young people have working consciences anymore. No wonder cheating and plagiarism are rampant!
I jumped ship after 10.3, so I don't know if 10.4 really was any kind of improvement. But I can tell you that 10.2 was the first version that was somewhat usable. 10.3 was actually much better, but still incredibly slow and bloated. The OS was slow and unresponsive even without any running apps and 512MB of RAM on a 1.25GHz iBook G4. Of course, being that Apple gives you a cruddy 32MB of VRAM in the iBook, I couldn't take advantage of Quartz Extreme. And there's no way to turn all of that eye candy off to speed things up a bit. You're stuck with that gawdy UI even if it strains the limits of your system, which, ironically, was specifically built to run the OS!
Windows XP is responsive and quick even on my son's old 800 MHz Duron system with 256MB of RAM. I sold all the Macs, bought PCs, and haven't regretted it one bit.
Digital cameras? Puh-leeze... I'm not talking about basic USB Mass Storage class devices here that will work with any USB stack. I'm talking about things that actually require drivers, like multifunction printers, cheap inkjets (and even some cheap laser printers), cheap webcams, and the like. I can tell you off the top of my head that most of Minolta's printers do not work with Mac OS at all. Most of HP's inkjets require specific versions of Mac OS X, Panasonic printers without built-in PostScript won't work. Most multifunctions, IF they work at all with Mac OS X, will be missing one or two features like desktop faxing or network scanning. After I got discharged from the Army last year before I found a real job, I was working in Staples in the Business Machines section (printers, scanners, computers, webcams, accessories, etc.), so trust me when I say there's a ton of USB peripherals that won't work- most will, but definitely not all, particularly in the lower price or "value" segments, yet all do work with Windows. I was always looking at stuff to see if it would work with my Mac. Just because using an all-in-one printer is somehow beneath you, don't think that 99% of people out there don't actually prefer having a multifunction device. That's the 99% of people that I was referring to in my comment about why Apple does not appeal to the mainstream.
You must be a Linux fanboi masquerading as a Mac fanboi.
A true Mac fanboi would never make the ridiculous argument that you can buy literally anything off the shelf at your local electronics shop and it will work with a Mac. Every person I know that's actually ever owned a Mac knows what a pain in the ass it can be to find hardware that not only works, but works well with a Mac. The trick is to stay away from anything cheap and to scout the Macworld hardware reviews.
I was a Mac user for many, many years. From my IIcx to my iMac 350 to my iMac SE to my iBook, from System 7 to Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X 10.3. Apple is like the Soviet Union of computing. If you do everything their way, you'll be fine. I don't like to be boxed in to what Apple decides I should want out of a computer and pay their price which they set according to whim not having any competition in the Mac market. I actually cherish my freedom now. I can buy a PC from whomever I like and get exactly what I want, not just the 2, 3, or 4 configurations of the 4 models of computer that Apple offers, almost all of which have zero upgradeability.
For the benefit of all of our foreign friends out there who did not see the movie "Office Space" in English:
PMITA = Pound Me In The Ass (prison)
In other words, the kind of prison where you're likely going to end up real "intimate" with some guy named "Avocado," not the typical country-club style prison that most of the rich and famous get to go to.
It's not about security. It's not because of some evil conspiracy on the part of retailers to sell PCs instead of Macs.
A) availability: Most retailers don't carry Macs. Especially now that Apple has its own retail stores. Apple is now a competitor. And Apple has very strict limits on what prices 3rd party vendors can sell their computers for. That's why you never see a (new) Mac sold anywhere for more $5 less than Apple's own price.
B) price: You pay more for the Apple name. Yes, you also pay more because the cost of the PC is partially subsidized by promotional software, some of which may or may not be useful. In any event, for $500, which would you want? A Mac mini that doesn't even come with a DVD burner, keyboard, mouse, or monitor? Or would you rather have an Athlon64-based system with a DVD burner, keyboard, mouse, and everything you need and probably even a 15"-17" LCD monitor thrown in?
C) compatibility: You can't even buy a printer that doesn't work with Windows. It's not hard to find one that doesn't work with Mac. It's nice to know that whatever you buy will just work. Printers are a big problem here in that some printer drivers only work with certain point releases of Mac OS X. Others work, but are 10 times slower than on Windows (I offer up my Brother MFC-3820CN as proof of this). And multifunctions/all-in-ones may not have all functionality available on Mac.
D) upgradeability: Unless you're talking about a PowerMac G5, Macs have no internal expandability. What are you supposed to do if your computing needs change? Pay Apple to do the upgrade for you? You can't even install memory in a Mac mini without special expertise! Forget about upgrading an optical drive or a hard drive. How about upgrading the onboard video to something more current? Not even a remote possibility in a Mac because there are no expansion slots!
E) people like freedom: With a PC, you have your choice of manufacturer, a greater choice of options (both BTO and aftermarket), and the knowledge that you probably know someone who is good with PCs. And if you don't, any computer place (other than the Apple Store, naturally) can service it for you.
Consumers aren't dumb. Don't let your anti-Microsoft bias get in the way of seeing that PCs have very real practical advantages over Macs. I gather a lot of people will have the experience (as my wife and I did) of buying into the Mac hype only to go back to PCs and never look back. Unless you specifically need a Mac, I'd say in almost all cases, you're better off with a PC. Think about all the copycat iMacs that were around a few years ago.. the eOne, the Gateway Profile... People don't spend $500+ lightly. They want the piece of mind of knowing that their purchase is going to be upgradeable (in other words, not obsolete in two years) and that they are not going to be limited in buying peripherals in the future (Joe User doesn't want to have to read box labels to see which versions of Mac OS X his new all-in-one printer is compatible with).
Umm.. it's entertainment. You can live without it. You want to be entertained? Pay the price and comply with their conditions. Believe it or not, some of us could live without TV or music.
Wake me up when this affects things that aren't completely unnecessary for life, like food and water.
It's amazing what we humans have become that we treat listening to music or watching a movie as an inalienable right and yet don't even recognize the right to life, shelter, food, or dignity of the most vulnerable among us.
You are misunderstanding miserably. The whole Sony rootkit incident would not have even happened if CD's were properly managed in the first place to prevent casual copying. You see, in absence of DRM, it's left to companies to implement their own bizarre means of copy protection, which often break the product. It would be great IMO if no one ever had to use SafeDisc to protect a CD-ROM because the CD-ROM would only ever allow one copy (a backup) to be made by some integrated method in hardware.
The lack of DRM is what is creating these headaches. The world is a better place when content creators and distributors can work within some established, standardized API or hardware spec to enforce their license terms rather than having to resort to things which are totally proprietary, hackish, and incompatible.
Encrypting files for personal use has almost nothing to do with DRM. If an RIAA exec wants to encrypt his music, good for him, but he has no business encrypting music I PAID FOR. If I've bought the music, no one has any right to restrict how/where/when I use it, especially if it's well within my fair use rights
Actually, YOU PAID FOR the encrypted files. It's not like people are purchasing music from iTunes not knowing they can't give away copies of it. And if they don't know, then they didn't read the EULA or TOS and it's their own damned fault.
Essentially, consumers expect certain rights when they purchase things. When I buy a car, the car manufacturer has no right to restrict things like where I take the car, whether I can sell the car, and whether I put Chevron or Exxon gasoline in it. When they buy music, they expect that they own the music, and can play it on any device they own, and put it on any playlist or mixtape they want, and maybe even sell the music to someone else when they're done with it, or at least archive the music in an easily accessible format so they won't ever have to repurchase it. All in the full quality they purchased it in too, not downsampled or recompressed to a different lossy format.
The manufacturer sells you the car, not a license to use the car. The correct analogy would be leasing a car, in which case, you better stick to the terms of your lease or you will pay $$$. When people buy a CD, they expect that they own the physical CD. That's not unreasonable. First sale says you can sell the CD or give it away. What we are talking about is copying the CD. You own the CD, not the music that's on it. That still belongs to the copyright holder--just like you aren't allowed to photocopy a book you own to give to 100 of your closest friends. And as far as non-physical media is concerned, this is something new. But if you start off with the expectation that if you buy a music file (WMA, M4P) online, it can't be played except according to the terms under which it was purchased ("licensed" is probably a better word here; you're "purchasing" a license, not the rights to the music itself). The problem is that people (with or without malice) would casually copy and trade MP3's on the internet and they expect that they should still be allowed to do this, even though it is illegal (DRM or no DRM does not change the legality of this). What DRM does is put a limit on what people can do with these files. The terms are spelled out and if the consumer doesn't agree to them, they can simply not pay for it. It's not like we're talking about food and water here. You can actually live without music.
Slashdot Mirror
...at least it's not goatse and tubgirl!
Heck, the first few versions of Mac OS X were just Apple trying to fix a lot of the stuff they broke since the transition from Mac OS 9... the Finder, print spooler, the ungodly slowness, a million and a half bugs in Classic.. I've been a Mac user regularly since 8.6, and I stuck with them (painfully) all the way through 10.2. When 10.3 was ready, I had enough of paying Apple $199 a year (to upgrade my 3 Apple computers) every single year to get a new version of the OS that would suck slightly less and not lock me out of installing stuff I need like patches to 3rd party software or printer drivers that required specific versions of OS X or required an expensive new Mac to not run dog slow because my completely unupgradeable iMac didn't have enough VRAM to take advantage of Quartz Extreme. I switched to Windows for good and haven't looked back.
For what an iMac would cost, I have a PC that I can easily upgrade the graphics card if necessary, add more internal storage, allow me to upgrade my display without having to upgrade my whole computer (for most of us working people, a $3000 Power Mac G5 quadruple core megazord isn't exactly attainable--all of Apple's computers that are affordable to us mere mortals are one-piece units), and runs Windows, which when there is an upgrade, the upgrade is meaningful in that there are real changes under the hood that improve stability and/or performance, little or no compatibility with prior versions of the OS is sacrificed. If Microsoft does release an upgrade, I don't have to pay full price because Microsoft actually offers an upgrade version (unlike Apple), Microsoft also offers multi-license discounts (like Apple), and now I'm also not locked down into the way Steve Jobs wants me to use my computer. I have a much greater selection of software I can run, hardware I can use.. I can use the digital audio player of my choice and use the music download service of my choice (even use a subscription service..which Apple doesn't even give me the choice of).
Basically, the Mac is communism. You do things their way. The way that the all-knowing uebercool Steve Jobs, the Great Leader, does. PCs running Windows are all-American..they're about freedom of choice. I can choose what hardware and what software suits me. I'm not limited by what the Great Leader tells me I can use. Strangely enough, I think that this is mirrored in the political views of their respective users... Mac users tend to be leftists who want to impose their ideals upon the rest of the world because they are "enlightened" and "know what's best" for us, Windows users tend to be more to the right and value having control over their own property.
Article titles can't start with a lower case character "due to technical limitations."
File for chapter 11..
...
re-organize...
sue the pants off of everyone...
PROFIT!!
I wonder if that means that if they gained power, it would be easier for pedophiles and zoophiles to migrate there. That would really tick off the posters here who have had trouble with IND! Then again... given the stereotypes about slashdotters......
They should just do a feature-length Red vs. Blue... I'd pay $$$ to go see that! :)
Obviously, you've never been out on Halloween.. those witches are EVERYWHERE I tell you!
Come to think of it, why don't we throw in Nazis, too, so we can stay compliant with Godwin's Law.
Gangs... freemasons... same difference! :D
But if you consider I download several hundred songs per month, if I bought them on iTMS, I'd be out several hundred dollars per month instead of fifteen.
Some people just have a bias against anything Microsoft or anything that challenges Apple. I feel sorry for you.
...that Benjamin Franklin's writing sample in his phonetic alphabet displays a markedly different pronunciation of several common words (such as "of" - it appears to rhyme with "grove") than what is commonly pronounced today. So, what is the point of changing the spelling to be phonetic today, when that pronunciation may very well change after 50, 100, 200 years... not to mention that there would have to be some agreement on which pronunciation is "standard" to begin with. Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston and lived most of his life in Philadelphia. I'd hate to imagine how the word "water" would be spelled!
What is immoral? They make a product, they set a price, they sell it. Nobody forces you to use their product. Why do they have a monopoly? There are alternatives. You don't like Windows? Run Linux. You don't like MS Word? Use WordPerfect or OpenOffice. Don't like Excel? How about Lotus 1-2-3? Outlook? There's Lotus Notes. Funny thing is, most of these products used to own a larger share of the market than Microsoft's, yet Microsoft won because they made their software easier-to-use and offered better support and volume licensing. So don't fault Microsoft for playing the game of capitalism and succeeding. You don't like it? Maybe you'd feel more at home in Cuba or North Korea, then...
I'm curious to know why iTMS is preferable! I would be broke if I had to pay a dollar for every song I wanted! Instead, I pay Virgin Digital $15/mo (less than the cost of a CD) and I can download to my heart's content (from a larger catalog than iTMS even!) and even take the music with me on my Rio Carbon. My iPod is now collecting dust on my dresser. Now, if someone were giving me Napster for free, I'd be using that!
Of course, it would be immoral to continue to use something you're not legally entitled to. It amazes me how few young people have working consciences anymore. No wonder cheating and plagiarism are rampant!
Of course, that would be illegal... I find most honest people can live with the restrictions. It's just that most people aren't honest.
Windows XP is responsive and quick even on my son's old 800 MHz Duron system with 256MB of RAM. I sold all the Macs, bought PCs, and haven't regretted it one bit.
Digital cameras? Puh-leeze... I'm not talking about basic USB Mass Storage class devices here that will work with any USB stack. I'm talking about things that actually require drivers, like multifunction printers, cheap inkjets (and even some cheap laser printers), cheap webcams, and the like. I can tell you off the top of my head that most of Minolta's printers do not work with Mac OS at all. Most of HP's inkjets require specific versions of Mac OS X, Panasonic printers without built-in PostScript won't work. Most multifunctions, IF they work at all with Mac OS X, will be missing one or two features like desktop faxing or network scanning. After I got discharged from the Army last year before I found a real job, I was working in Staples in the Business Machines section (printers, scanners, computers, webcams, accessories, etc.), so trust me when I say there's a ton of USB peripherals that won't work- most will, but definitely not all, particularly in the lower price or "value" segments, yet all do work with Windows. I was always looking at stuff to see if it would work with my Mac. Just because using an all-in-one printer is somehow beneath you, don't think that 99% of people out there don't actually prefer having a multifunction device. That's the 99% of people that I was referring to in my comment about why Apple does not appeal to the mainstream.
A true Mac fanboi would never make the ridiculous argument that you can buy literally anything off the shelf at your local electronics shop and it will work with a Mac. Every person I know that's actually ever owned a Mac knows what a pain in the ass it can be to find hardware that not only works, but works well with a Mac. The trick is to stay away from anything cheap and to scout the Macworld hardware reviews.
I was a Mac user for many, many years. From my IIcx to my iMac 350 to my iMac SE to my iBook, from System 7 to Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X 10.3. Apple is like the Soviet Union of computing. If you do everything their way, you'll be fine. I don't like to be boxed in to what Apple decides I should want out of a computer and pay their price which they set according to whim not having any competition in the Mac market. I actually cherish my freedom now. I can buy a PC from whomever I like and get exactly what I want, not just the 2, 3, or 4 configurations of the 4 models of computer that Apple offers, almost all of which have zero upgradeability.
PMITA = Pound Me In The Ass (prison)
In other words, the kind of prison where you're likely going to end up real "intimate" with some guy named "Avocado," not the typical country-club style prison that most of the rich and famous get to go to.
A) availability: Most retailers don't carry Macs. Especially now that Apple has its own retail stores. Apple is now a competitor. And Apple has very strict limits on what prices 3rd party vendors can sell their computers for. That's why you never see a (new) Mac sold anywhere for more $5 less than Apple's own price.
B) price: You pay more for the Apple name. Yes, you also pay more because the cost of the PC is partially subsidized by promotional software, some of which may or may not be useful. In any event, for $500, which would you want? A Mac mini that doesn't even come with a DVD burner, keyboard, mouse, or monitor? Or would you rather have an Athlon64-based system with a DVD burner, keyboard, mouse, and everything you need and probably even a 15"-17" LCD monitor thrown in?
C) compatibility: You can't even buy a printer that doesn't work with Windows. It's not hard to find one that doesn't work with Mac. It's nice to know that whatever you buy will just work. Printers are a big problem here in that some printer drivers only work with certain point releases of Mac OS X. Others work, but are 10 times slower than on Windows (I offer up my Brother MFC-3820CN as proof of this). And multifunctions/all-in-ones may not have all functionality available on Mac.
D) upgradeability: Unless you're talking about a PowerMac G5, Macs have no internal expandability. What are you supposed to do if your computing needs change? Pay Apple to do the upgrade for you? You can't even install memory in a Mac mini without special expertise! Forget about upgrading an optical drive or a hard drive. How about upgrading the onboard video to something more current? Not even a remote possibility in a Mac because there are no expansion slots!
E) people like freedom: With a PC, you have your choice of manufacturer, a greater choice of options (both BTO and aftermarket), and the knowledge that you probably know someone who is good with PCs. And if you don't, any computer place (other than the Apple Store, naturally) can service it for you.
Consumers aren't dumb. Don't let your anti-Microsoft bias get in the way of seeing that PCs have very real practical advantages over Macs. I gather a lot of people will have the experience (as my wife and I did) of buying into the Mac hype only to go back to PCs and never look back. Unless you specifically need a Mac, I'd say in almost all cases, you're better off with a PC. Think about all the copycat iMacs that were around a few years ago.. the eOne, the Gateway Profile... People don't spend $500+ lightly. They want the piece of mind of knowing that their purchase is going to be upgradeable (in other words, not obsolete in two years) and that they are not going to be limited in buying peripherals in the future (Joe User doesn't want to have to read box labels to see which versions of Mac OS X his new all-in-one printer is compatible with).
...um, is it in fact an illegal copy? :)
It ought not be about "what the people want/can tolerate." It ought to be about the Truth.
Wake me up when this affects things that aren't completely unnecessary for life, like food and water.
It's amazing what we humans have become that we treat listening to music or watching a movie as an inalienable right and yet don't even recognize the right to life, shelter, food, or dignity of the most vulnerable among us.
The lack of DRM is what is creating these headaches. The world is a better place when content creators and distributors can work within some established, standardized API or hardware spec to enforce their license terms rather than having to resort to things which are totally proprietary, hackish, and incompatible.
Actually, YOU PAID FOR the encrypted files. It's not like people are purchasing music from iTunes not knowing they can't give away copies of it. And if they don't know, then they didn't read the EULA or TOS and it's their own damned fault.
Essentially, consumers expect certain rights when they purchase things. When I buy a car, the car manufacturer has no right to restrict things like where I take the car, whether I can sell the car, and whether I put Chevron or Exxon gasoline in it. When they buy music, they expect that they own the music, and can play it on any device they own, and put it on any playlist or mixtape they want, and maybe even sell the music to someone else when they're done with it, or at least archive the music in an easily accessible format so they won't ever have to repurchase it. All in the full quality they purchased it in too, not downsampled or recompressed to a different lossy format.The manufacturer sells you the car, not a license to use the car. The correct analogy would be leasing a car, in which case, you better stick to the terms of your lease or you will pay $$$. When people buy a CD, they expect that they own the physical CD. That's not unreasonable. First sale says you can sell the CD or give it away. What we are talking about is copying the CD. You own the CD, not the music that's on it. That still belongs to the copyright holder--just like you aren't allowed to photocopy a book you own to give to 100 of your closest friends. And as far as non-physical media is concerned, this is something new. But if you start off with the expectation that if you buy a music file (WMA, M4P) online, it can't be played except according to the terms under which it was purchased ("licensed" is probably a better word here; you're "purchasing" a license, not the rights to the music itself). The problem is that people (with or without malice) would casually copy and trade MP3's on the internet and they expect that they should still be allowed to do this, even though it is illegal (DRM or no DRM does not change the legality of this). What DRM does is put a limit on what people can do with these files. The terms are spelled out and if the consumer doesn't agree to them, they can simply not pay for it. It's not like we're talking about food and water here. You can actually live without music.