You're asking for a world without progress. Between that and Samsung's attitude here, it's no wonder people wind up sucking it up and buying Apple; they win when everybody else fails.
And yet, even in the Windows-world, there is absolutely no excuse why an OEM the size of Samsung (or equivalent) cannot manage to wrangle drivers like Apple does.
And I don't want to hear "Oh, there's so many more hardware choices, no one can keep up." First off, that may be somewhat true-er on Desktops; but where Laptops are concerned, the hardware is usually pretty stable within a particular model; and second, a good portion of the "hardware choices" on even Desktop OEM hardware has to do not with "diversity" or "choice", but rather which vendor is selling for a half-penny-less this week; and third, even though Macs generally have a somewhat-less huge catalog of chipset and peripheral combinations, it's not anything like the zero differences that those who promote the "But Windows has to handle SOOOOO many different configurations" argument would have you believe, especially when you consider that any given version of OS X has to be able to install across a pretty large range of Mac hardware, and the differences, even in that restricted group, add up pretty fast.
So, it really does often come down to the fact that Windows OEMs are, by and large, simply lazy-ass scumbags, who's race-to-the-bottom dominates every aspect of their product design, manufacturing, and customer disservice.
You're right: It's no wonder people get tired of it and switch to Macs.
With that said, I will concede that their consumer stuff can be flaky. I believe that the problems with the consumer stuff is poor quality control.
Yeah, I think the article pretty much was talking about consumer-grade stuff.
So why do you think Dell believes that "consumers" are ok to throw under the QA-bus? Could it be that race-to-the-bottom that defines Windows "consumer-grade" hardware is actually a pretty heartless, greedy business-model.
Enabling automatic updates is a greater security threat than not updating your OS at all.
The risk of data loss due to sudden unwanted restarts is far greater and more real than having an OS that is 2 days out of date
Your OS subjects you to sudden, unwanted restarts?!?
That's certainly not helpful if you want to run Windows, since the windows drivers are buried in this bootcamp nonsense. Could anyone please point me to a separate download location for drivers for e.g. the camera in a polycarbonate 24" iMac?
You can likely use the Freeware (oops, now it's $20, but still worth it!), Pacifist, to extract the iSight Driver from the Bootcamp 1.2 or greater.pkg file (assuming you want Vista or later Windows-Support). It should be the same camera as all of the Polycarbonate iMacs, and in fact, all iMacs up to and including the Late 2009 model.
I can think of two solutions on how to solve this problem.
1) Pin the installed OEM drivers, so that Windows understands that no other drivers should be installed for these device IDs.
or
2) In the PCI device ID, add extra information that this device is a special Samsung variant, and then Windows knows that the generic driver for that device is not compatible.
I'm not sure if these solutions are possible, if someone knows more then please let me know.
So IOW, do what Samsung should have done at the OEM level, right?
It basically felt like the company got swindled and bought some crappy desktops targeted to home users to pretend like they were all fancy, but were, in fact, utter crap.
Once you said "Dell", the above statement was utterly redundant.
If Trojans are called viruses on Windows they can be called viruses on OS X.
No.
Windows used to (maybe still does) have examples of true, self-replicating malware. Those are legitimately called "viruses".
OS X has never had a virus. Only Trojans. BIG difference, since ANY OS that allows the installation of software can fall prey to a USER-INSTALLED Trojan; but only non-secure OSes can support virus propagation.
Nice try, but repeating an error is not a justification for committing the error in the first place. Or, as my Mom used to say "Two wrongs don't make a right."
And because 99.999% of mac users are complete morons who think simply running the OS makes them immune to all hacking this is going to be extra effective. Good job, crapple marketing team. You've raised a whole generation of users are are completely unprepared for what's coming.
No.
Most of the people who are swelling the Mac's marketshare are coming from Windows; and a good percentage of them can't even imagine a platform essentially without malware, and so the INSIST on running AV.
Plus, OS X has some (very) basic AV capabilities of its own, too.
But all the Mac fanbois tell me that Apple products never get viruses....
This is a Trojan. Every OS will ultimately allow $StupidUser to defeat $SECURITY_FEATURE to install ANYTHING from ANYBODY from ANYWHERE. But, without going into details, OS X has several redundant features that both make the $StupidUser far less likely to just casually click-install their way into slavery, and to attempt to minimize the damage that can be wrought by $MALICIOUS_CODE.
Nothing is ever foolproof; but OS X is pretty damned secure; to the point that AV apps are still unnecessary.
I've worked in the middle of a bunch of IOS techs for years. They have all the problems that windows users have, just with some different names, and a few variations of specifics, this includes malware. The main reason there are so many less infectors is because they are a much smaller priority for the scum making the malware because there are a lot less IOS boxes than there are Windows boxes. They are looking for quantity, whether it's part of a scam to get money, or to score points for destroying someones data, and targeting IOS is automatically limiting your maximum targets.
Hate windows all you want, but don't ever mistake obscurity for any kind of real security.
I'm all for seeing musicians getting paid for music being streamed, or even Apple getting a cut for supplying the back-end infrastructure - I just REALLY wished there was a good way to get the money DIRECTLY from my account to the musician without subsidizing the entire sleaze ball scum bag music 'industry' in between.
There is!
Just wait until there is Apple Connect, then msg. your favorite artist, telling them that you'd like to give them money directly, and all they have to do is give you their bank account info.
They should be tickled-pink to cut out the middleman!
Odds are Apple is only going to play top selling music. They have to win over customers from the start, they won't take risks from songs that are being bought by family members.
I think that Beats1 will be mostly "top 40" music; but, just like a "regular" radio station, Beats1 will play "classics" once in awhile. And I believe that Apple Music will also offer "Genre-based" channels as well, along with the ability for users to create personal Playlists.
So here's an interesting one. I am a musician in my spare time, and I have an album up on iTunes. It's a good job my life's income doesn't depend on this - we are talking tiny sums of money made, but it is my album and it's an achievement for me to have an album out there and hey - there are people that like it.
I have no idea if this album is included in streaming or not. I'm not signed to a label, and nobody has asked me if I want to be included or excluded. I would have thought, given the talk of "pulling the album" etc. that there must be a separate agreement I should have to make but I haven't seen anything at all about it.
The music was published via an intermediary, Ditto Music, but they're just a publishing service and not a label. In fact, I own the label it was published under and that is the label's sole release to date. What's the situation for musicians like me? Included, excluded, paid, unpaid...?
I don't know for sure; but from what I have heard, if you are available on iTMS, then you will be available on Apple Music. Having said that, someone posted what was purported to be an Apple Music "Artist Agreement"; but I didn't read it very carefully at all.
From this article, it sounds like, unless you specifically "opted out" of being on Apple Music, like Taylor Swift and the Beatles, you will be on Apple Music if you are available on iTMS.
You're so missing the point.
There are *ALREADY* about seventeen billion ways those artists can get their free, no-royalties-paid exposure to the public; Spotify's free tier, Youtube, various other Internet streaming/radio sites, etc. Apple is trying to muscle its way into the internet streaming music business and build credibility for its brand. They are trying to get their marketing budget for free by riding the artists.
It is APPLE that is trying to break into a new market, not the artists - it is Apple that should pay the royalties for those trial periods.
Ok; so I've got a solution that should please everyone who's whining: Apple allows any Indie Artist to opt-into a program where their music isn't available, nor played, on Apple Music during the Free Trial Period. Then, after the 3-month period expires, everything reverts to normal for that artist on Apple Music.
However, in return, the Artist also allows Apple to list their name on a Web Page explaining that the Artist chose not to participate in the Apple Music Trial Offer; but to check back after the Trial is over.
Everybody should be happy, right?
That is, unless the Trial Period pertains to each individual user's sign up date, in which case, nevermind!
Strangely consumers haven't been trained yet to make their purchases at the same rate forever after an album is launched. Ie, an album released during the three months is taking a larger hit than yoko ono is.
So you are assuming that they will only have one popular song in their entire career, right?
Slashdot Mirror
the only thing stopping them from getting WHQL on their drivers is the fact that their crapware drivers wouldn't pass WHQL
There, FTFY.
You're asking for a world without progress. Between that and Samsung's attitude here, it's no wonder people wind up sucking it up and buying Apple; they win when everybody else fails.
And yet, even in the Windows-world, there is absolutely no excuse why an OEM the size of Samsung (or equivalent) cannot manage to wrangle drivers like Apple does.
And I don't want to hear "Oh, there's so many more hardware choices, no one can keep up." First off, that may be somewhat true-er on Desktops; but where Laptops are concerned, the hardware is usually pretty stable within a particular model; and second, a good portion of the "hardware choices" on even Desktop OEM hardware has to do not with "diversity" or "choice", but rather which vendor is selling for a half-penny-less this week; and third, even though Macs generally have a somewhat-less huge catalog of chipset and peripheral combinations, it's not anything like the zero differences that those who promote the "But Windows has to handle SOOOOO many different configurations" argument would have you believe, especially when you consider that any given version of OS X has to be able to install across a pretty large range of Mac hardware, and the differences, even in that restricted group, add up pretty fast.
So, it really does often come down to the fact that Windows OEMs are, by and large, simply lazy-ass scumbags, who's race-to-the-bottom dominates every aspect of their product design, manufacturing, and customer disservice.
You're right: It's no wonder people get tired of it and switch to Macs.
With that said, I will concede that their consumer stuff can be flaky. I believe that the problems with the consumer stuff is poor quality control.
Yeah, I think the article pretty much was talking about consumer-grade stuff.
So why do you think Dell believes that "consumers" are ok to throw under the QA-bus? Could it be that race-to-the-bottom that defines Windows "consumer-grade" hardware is actually a pretty heartless, greedy business-model.
And most users would also say goodbye to their software. You get crap in the Apple world, too, but I guess some people just don't want to admit it...
Actually, I would no longer say "most". I would definitely say "some"; but the gap narrows with each passing year.
You know, or you could save your work instead of just leaving it open forever and hoping the computer doesn't shut down or restart for some reason.
Or you could just use OS X with its built-in AutoSave and "Auto Resume" features.
Enabling automatic updates is a greater security threat than not updating your OS at all. The risk of data loss due to sudden unwanted restarts is far greater and more real than having an OS that is 2 days out of date
Your OS subjects you to sudden, unwanted restarts?!?
Switch to OS X to fix that problem.
That's certainly not helpful if you want to run Windows, since the windows drivers are buried in this bootcamp nonsense. Could anyone please point me to a separate download location for drivers for e.g. the camera in a polycarbonate 24" iMac?
You can likely use the Freeware (oops, now it's $20, but still worth it!), Pacifist, to extract the iSight Driver from the Bootcamp 1.2 or greater .pkg file (assuming you want Vista or later Windows-Support). It should be the same camera as all of the Polycarbonate iMacs, and in fact, all iMacs up to and including the Late 2009 model.
Seriously?! If this is a dealbreaker issue for someone, which OEM should I recommend if people are looking to buy new laptops?
Simple.
Apple.
Fifth option.
Get a Mac, and say goodbye to crapware, crap hardware, and just crap in general.
I can think of two solutions on how to solve this problem.
1) Pin the installed OEM drivers, so that Windows understands that no other drivers should be installed for these device IDs.
or
2) In the PCI device ID, add extra information that this device is a special Samsung variant, and then Windows knows that the generic driver for that device is not compatible.
I'm not sure if these solutions are possible, if someone knows more then please let me know.
So IOW, do what Samsung should have done at the OEM level, right?
It basically felt like the company got swindled and bought some crappy desktops targeted to home users to pretend like they were all fancy, but were, in fact, utter crap.
Once you said "Dell", the above statement was utterly redundant.
This sounds like incompetence all the way around, and is on-going proof of why I hate OEM laptops. Because they fill them with so much garbage.
You mean OEM Windows laptops.
If Trojans are called viruses on Windows they can be called viruses on OS X.
No.
Windows used to (maybe still does) have examples of true, self-replicating malware. Those are legitimately called "viruses".
OS X has never had a virus. Only Trojans. BIG difference, since ANY OS that allows the installation of software can fall prey to a USER-INSTALLED Trojan; but only non-secure OSes can support virus propagation.
Nice try, but repeating an error is not a justification for committing the error in the first place. Or, as my Mom used to say "Two wrongs don't make a right."
And because 99.999% of mac users are complete morons who think simply running the OS makes them immune to all hacking this is going to be extra effective. Good job, crapple marketing team. You've raised a whole generation of users are are completely unprepared for what's coming.
No.
Most of the people who are swelling the Mac's marketshare are coming from Windows; and a good percentage of them can't even imagine a platform essentially without malware, and so the INSIST on running AV.
Plus, OS X has some (very) basic AV capabilities of its own, too.
But all the Mac fanbois tell me that Apple products never get viruses....
This is a Trojan. Every OS will ultimately allow $StupidUser to defeat $SECURITY_FEATURE to install ANYTHING from ANYBODY from ANYWHERE. But, without going into details, OS X has several redundant features that both make the $StupidUser far less likely to just casually click-install their way into slavery, and to attempt to minimize the damage that can be wrought by $MALICIOUS_CODE.
Nothing is ever foolproof; but OS X is pretty damned secure; to the point that AV apps are still unnecessary.
I've worked in the middle of a bunch of IOS techs for years. They have all the problems that windows users have, just with some different names, and a few variations of specifics, this includes malware. The main reason there are so many less infectors is because they are a much smaller priority for the scum making the malware because there are a lot less IOS boxes than there are Windows boxes. They are looking for quantity, whether it's part of a scam to get money, or to score points for destroying someones data, and targeting IOS is automatically limiting your maximum targets. Hate windows all you want, but don't ever mistake obscurity for any kind of real security.
You are truly an idiot.
WTF is an "IOS[sic] box"???
Not even a nice try.
I'm all for seeing musicians getting paid for music being streamed, or even Apple getting a cut for supplying the back-end infrastructure - I just REALLY wished there was a good way to get the money DIRECTLY from my account to the musician without subsidizing the entire sleaze ball scum bag music 'industry' in between.
There is!
Just wait until there is Apple Connect, then msg. your favorite artist, telling them that you'd like to give them money directly, and all they have to do is give you their bank account info.
They should be tickled-pink to cut out the middleman!
Now what? How about your license that allows you to speak for every other musician out there?
You think you're the only musician?
You can be a musician AND an entitled prick at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
Really? I never would have guessed that.
And oh, BTW, as an attorney (guessing by your UserID), you probably do know the definition of the term "Moot".
And that's what this argument is; since Apple decided to pay the Artists during the "Trial" period, anyway.
So, you must just like arguing for argument's sake. Not a very good trait in a lawyer.
You're an entitled prick.
Actually, I'm a musician.
Now what?
Do you have the money to fight them? No? Then it's included and unpaid.
Citation, please.
Odds are Apple is only going to play top selling music. They have to win over customers from the start, they won't take risks from songs that are being bought by family members.
I think that Beats1 will be mostly "top 40" music; but, just like a "regular" radio station, Beats1 will play "classics" once in awhile. And I believe that Apple Music will also offer "Genre-based" channels as well, along with the ability for users to create personal Playlists.
So here's an interesting one. I am a musician in my spare time, and I have an album up on iTunes. It's a good job my life's income doesn't depend on this - we are talking tiny sums of money made, but it is my album and it's an achievement for me to have an album out there and hey - there are people that like it. I have no idea if this album is included in streaming or not. I'm not signed to a label, and nobody has asked me if I want to be included or excluded. I would have thought, given the talk of "pulling the album" etc. that there must be a separate agreement I should have to make but I haven't seen anything at all about it. The music was published via an intermediary, Ditto Music, but they're just a publishing service and not a label. In fact, I own the label it was published under and that is the label's sole release to date. What's the situation for musicians like me? Included, excluded, paid, unpaid...?
I don't know for sure; but from what I have heard, if you are available on iTMS, then you will be available on Apple Music. Having said that, someone posted what was purported to be an Apple Music "Artist Agreement"; but I didn't read it very carefully at all.
From this article, it sounds like, unless you specifically "opted out" of being on Apple Music, like Taylor Swift and the Beatles, you will be on Apple Music if you are available on iTMS.
You're so missing the point. There are *ALREADY* about seventeen billion ways those artists can get their free, no-royalties-paid exposure to the public; Spotify's free tier, Youtube, various other Internet streaming/radio sites, etc. Apple is trying to muscle its way into the internet streaming music business and build credibility for its brand. They are trying to get their marketing budget for free by riding the artists. It is APPLE that is trying to break into a new market, not the artists - it is Apple that should pay the royalties for those trial periods.
Ok; so I've got a solution that should please everyone who's whining: Apple allows any Indie Artist to opt-into a program where their music isn't available, nor played, on Apple Music during the Free Trial Period. Then, after the 3-month period expires, everything reverts to normal for that artist on Apple Music.
However, in return, the Artist also allows Apple to list their name on a Web Page explaining that the Artist chose not to participate in the Apple Music Trial Offer; but to check back after the Trial is over.
Everybody should be happy, right?
That is, unless the Trial Period pertains to each individual user's sign up date, in which case, nevermind!
Strangely consumers haven't been trained yet to make their purchases at the same rate forever after an album is launched. Ie, an album released during the three months is taking a larger hit than yoko ono is.
So you are assuming that they will only have one popular song in their entire career, right?
To Parent mlts:
Exactly! Please Mod Parent Insightful.