In this case, the iMac is cheaper (and better spec-ed) hands down.
You can get the 2nd from the bottom iMac for $100 more than the REBATED base-model XPS AIO (or the SAME PRICE without Dell's "$100 instant rebate"), and except for the memory (which is only there because Visturd(TM) REQUIRES it, and which is MAXXED-OUT at 2GB in the XPS!!!), a TV tuner (which is pretty nice, I'll admit) and the $5 media reader slot, the iMac has a faster CPU (2.4 vs. 2.2GHz), double the RAM capacity (4GB vs. 2GB), FAR superior Graphics (Radeon HD 2600 256MB vs. "Integrated video"), larger HD (320GB vs. 250GB), better Optial Drive (8x DL DVD +/- RW, vs. unspecified-layers "DVD+-RW"), faster FireWire (yeah, ok, but it still beats a media slot!), iLife '08 vs. some Adobe lite-version abomination, and, oh yes, a 64/32 bit OS that doesn't suck (and can actually ADDRESS 4GB of RAM!), vs. well, Visturd(TM) Home Premium (whatever that is!)... (but which, of course, the iMac can also run, if needed/desired).
So, what kindly Uncle Walt forgot to notice was, when comparing SAME-PRICED systems, the iMac is the CLEAR winner.
I find it utterly fascinating that the record labels have gone straight from PAYOLA, where radio stations are paid BY RECORD LABELS (all RIAA members, by the way!) to favor certain songs over others, to the RIAA (which ostensibly is speaking on behalf of those same RECORD LABELS) demanding "royalties" for playing those records (or discs, etc.).
The MAFIAA has simply gone stark-raving mad with greed, if they think pissing-off their single largest FREE (did I mention FREE) ADVERTISING service (Radio) is going to bring them anything but grief and lawsuits.
Oh, and speaking of lawsuits, though IANAL, there is a legal doctrine known as "Laches", which means you can't sit on your hands, and THEN claim you are being "damaged". There is another legal doctrine known as "Implied Consent", which states you can't let some behavior that is against a policy go on for a significant number of months or years (or, in this case, DECADES), and then suddenly claim that the other guy is "in violation" of that policy.
IMHO, the MAFIAA is TOAST on this, as well they should be...
I have to agree. I just watched part of a "Journeyman" episode on my G5 tower without a hitch.
I am running Safari 1.3.2 on OS X 10.3.9 (Panther), and other than a bug that makes me press the "Play" button on NBC's player after the obligatory commercial at the beginning, the video plays smoothly and looks pretty good. Even the "Full Screen" (sorta) mode looks good.
You said: Your first mistake is that you speak of this as if it is only a matter of law. Clearly, this is about more than that.
That's true. In a lawsuit, there are also facts. But there are NOT "emotions, wants or desires". This is a product liability v. contract law dispute. Period. Dot. The End. Sorry if you are too ignorant of law or emotionally immature to see that. But that is what it is.
Me, I LOVE features! I LOVE expandibility! I have reverse-engineered embedded systems to add features.
But I would NEVER expect my modifications to those single-purpose (or limited-purpose) systems to survive a software update. Epecially not one where I was WARNED might negatively impact my joy...
Second, I misspoke when I said the purchase of an iPhone requires a contract with AT&T. What I should have said was "Using the cellphone features of the iPhone requires a contract with AT&T". However, it is a distinction with very little difference. I would imagine the percentage of iPhone customers who have elected not to use the cellphone or cellular data features of their iPhone is probably in the.0000001% world. And I would also imagine that Apple will prevail.
1. It was a consensual update. No MacroSuck(TM) "forced update" stuff here!
2. You were warned before the phone was on sale that using the phone in the US meant AT&T.
3. You were warned before the phone was on sale that the only "apps" would be web-based.
4. You had 14 days under Apple's normal return policy to return the phone for a refund.
5. You were warned that this particular update may adversely affect modified phones.
It really is that simple. Anything else is just whining, and quite unbecoming of an adult...;-)
Do you remember? The iPhone has some UNIQUE features (visual email, and a freakin' browser that's worth a sh** so people actually USE it!) that required changes in the carrier-side software (visual email), and a "liberalization" over nearly EVERY previous data-pricing plan, to fully "realize" the product.
Not to mention, Apple had alread committed (and wisely so) to using the WORLD-standard GSM. Their negotiations with Verizon hint that they may have had a phone circuit in development that was compatible with their antiquated cellphone network (remember, we don't make phone calls over EV-DO). So the question that is begged is: Are there ANY phones in the U.S. that CAN be used with EVERY carrier, from a practical, technical sense? Because of some of the fundamental differences (still) in frequencies, modulation techniques, packet structures, et frickin' CETERA, can someone actually design a phone that doesn't look like this that would satisfy the requirement to be TRULY "Unlocked".
An "unlocked" phone is fine in EUrope and other places where GSM is nearly ubiquitous; but in the U.S., it's not as happy of a situation. But even in EUrope, if a carrier doesn't want to mess with the infrastructure changes necessary to implement visual voicemail, all the "unlocking" will NOT bring that feature back.
The iPhone is not like a general-purpose computer; it is like a microwave oven, a router, a television set, a toaster, a TiVO, or a DVD player. In other words, it is an APPLIANCE. The/. crowd, like the people in this lawsuit, have to grow up, and get into the 1980s: In other words, there are embedded systems in a LOT of products; however, that does NOT mean that the manufacturer of your TV's remote control has to provide an SDK so you can cross-compile uCLinux to run on it; nor provide VoIP support for your Motorola Razor, etc.
If someone modded their TiVO to run OpenStep, or decompiled and rewrote their router's software so that it had better packet filtering, or played Pong, and the next CONSENTUALLY ACCEPTED firmware update made it into a finely crafted block of swiss cheese, capability-wise, would there be a lawsuit? Maybe, but not one that would prevail, let alone be granted "class" status!
Jobs laid down the development-law (at least for now) regarding the iPhone: No SDK. Web 2.0 "apps" only. And the "locked" law: Requires contract with AT&T (in the USA). He did this PUBLICLY, LONG before the iPhone went on sale. Not one single purchaser can claim ignorance of those conditions.
And yet, when someone wants to make their iPhone into something it was not developed for, regardless of the capabilities of the underlying OS, and then Apple wants to fix some stuff (and even add some features for free!), then WARNS PEOPLE OF MODIFIED PHONES THAT THEIR CONSENTUALLY ACCEPTED UPDATE MAY BREAK THEIR APPLIANCES, I sincerely believe that this lawsuit is, as it should be, doomed to fail.
Tough. Not Apple's fault. Any other position comes from simply being ignorant of contract law. Apple's phone is working to spec. Apple is in full compliance with thier part of the contract. And so is AT&T. Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone.
My OS X 10.3.9 G5 machine has had every USB stick that I could get my hands on connected to it, and it has never Kernel Paniced, and in fact has mounted and been able to read and write to/from every single one.
Not so my XP machine at work. It was just fine with USB sticks (in fact it was my favorite way to transfer "work" that was too big to email, back and forth to home work. That is, until I "shared" a "real" USB hard drive so that Veritas Backup Exec could use it as a glorified "tape cartridge" to do the weekly "full" backup of our workgroup's server. After that, I have only gotten ONE brand of USB stick to work (intermittently!) in that computer.
Also, have you ever tried the "deadly" USB stick in even ONE other Mac? It could be a fairly arcane hardware problem on that particular machine.
Actually, that was two statements and one question; so who's "ignorant" now?
However, please forgive my early-morning lack of sentence composition. I thought that most people reading my first statement (regarding back-room dealing) would recognize the tone as a SARCASTIC one. As for the other two (one is a question, not a statement), I think they stand as valid:
1. Indiana has a long history of deep-seated corruption and cronyism.
2. What is YOUR connection to Cha Cha?
BTW, I believe that the question begs an answer; so what is it?
Here is what I just posted to our (Indiana's) do-nothing "Inspector General":
See the article on Slashdot.org (link below), and keep in mind that, all of a sudden, as of only a week or so ago, I noticed that the www.in.gov site's searches were ALSO powered by the AD SPONSORED search engine, "Cha Cha". I believe that this is a violation of IC 35-44-1-1 et seq., as well as, in the case of the IU board, as a State Funded university, its Personnel policies against Conflict of Interest (which also cite the Indiana Code section IC 35-44-1-3).
I have also alerted members of the local media of this glaring Conflict of Interest; so you might not want to simply "bury" this issue, as you have a history of doing with so many that are brought to your office's attention.
I use the state.in.gov site quite frequently, and noticed for the first time last week that the former search was replaced with "Powered by Cha Cha". Things don't happen that fast without someone pushing them. And I guarantee that IU's Board and the Indiana Technology Department (or whatever it is called) are far-enough apart in their NORMAL decision-making process, that this should NOT have happened so close together, time-wise.
No, there is back-room dealing going on here, for sure. And Indiana has a long, long, LONG history of deep-seated corruption and cronyism.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, the iMac is cheaper (and better spec-ed) hands down.
You can get the 2nd from the bottom iMac for $100 more than the REBATED base-model XPS AIO (or the SAME PRICE without Dell's "$100 instant rebate"), and except for the memory (which is only there because Visturd(TM) REQUIRES it, and which is MAXXED-OUT at 2GB in the XPS!!!), a TV tuner (which is pretty nice, I'll admit) and the $5 media reader slot, the iMac has a faster CPU (2.4 vs. 2.2GHz), double the RAM capacity (4GB vs. 2GB), FAR superior Graphics (Radeon HD 2600 256MB vs. "Integrated video"), larger HD (320GB vs. 250GB), better Optial Drive (8x DL DVD +/- RW, vs. unspecified-layers "DVD+-RW"), faster FireWire (yeah, ok, but it still beats a media slot!), iLife '08 vs. some Adobe lite-version abomination, and, oh yes, a 64/32 bit OS that doesn't suck (and can actually ADDRESS 4GB of RAM!), vs. well, Visturd(TM) Home Premium (whatever that is!)... (but which, of course, the iMac can also run, if needed/desired).
So, what kindly Uncle Walt forgot to notice was, when comparing SAME-PRICED systems, the iMac is the CLEAR winner.
Show me where I'm wrong.
I find it utterly fascinating that the record labels have gone straight from PAYOLA, where radio stations are paid BY RECORD LABELS (all RIAA members, by the way!) to favor certain songs over others, to the RIAA (which ostensibly is speaking on behalf of those same RECORD LABELS) demanding "royalties" for playing those records (or discs, etc.).
The MAFIAA has simply gone stark-raving mad with greed, if they think pissing-off their single largest FREE (did I mention FREE) ADVERTISING service (Radio) is going to bring them anything but grief and lawsuits.
Oh, and speaking of lawsuits, though IANAL, there is a legal doctrine known as "Laches", which means you can't sit on your hands, and THEN claim you are being "damaged". There is another legal doctrine known as "Implied Consent", which states you can't let some behavior that is against a policy go on for a significant number of months or years (or, in this case, DECADES), and then suddenly claim that the other guy is "in violation" of that policy.
IMHO, the MAFIAA is TOAST on this, as well they should be...
Especially lame, since the intro graphics tout Mac and Linux availability. Then not even one word about a plugin for Mac or Linux browers.
Lame, indeed.
Next...
WHY OH WHY was the parent rated "Insightful"?
That's about the MOST BLATANT TROLL I've seen in a month!
Oh, that'll be JUST FINE, because the Police have IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LAWSUITS...
True.
If this were the Federal Government, the "Executive" would just write an Executive Order. Much more tidy than all this messy Legislation stuff!
I have to agree. I just watched part of a "Journeyman" episode on my G5 tower without a hitch.
I am running Safari 1.3.2 on OS X 10.3.9 (Panther), and other than a bug that makes me press the "Play" button on NBC's player after the obligatory commercial at the beginning, the video plays smoothly and looks pretty good. Even the "Full Screen" (sorta) mode looks good.
Best. Comment. Ever.
"Here comes right now", indeed!
One word: COINTELPRO.
How does the latest batch of iPods lock you into iTunes any more than any other "batch" of iPods?
Insightful, no.
Troll, yes.
Jury Nullification IS available to Jurors, BUT (sadly) ONLY IN A CRIMINAL CASE.
Ok, so now I'm REALLY embarrassed! However, I've slept about 2,000 times since them. Literally.
Thanx!
-Doug
You said: Your first mistake is that you speak of this as if it is only a matter of law. Clearly, this is about more than that.
.0000001% world. And I would also imagine that Apple will prevail.
;-)
That's true. In a lawsuit, there are also facts. But there are NOT "emotions, wants or desires". This is a product liability v. contract law dispute. Period. Dot. The End. Sorry if you are too ignorant of law or emotionally immature to see that. But that is what it is.
Me, I LOVE features! I LOVE expandibility! I have reverse-engineered embedded systems to add features.
But I would NEVER expect my modifications to those single-purpose (or limited-purpose) systems to survive a software update. Epecially not one where I was WARNED might negatively impact my joy...
Second, I misspoke when I said the purchase of an iPhone requires a contract with AT&T. What I should have said was "Using the cellphone features of the iPhone requires a contract with AT&T". However, it is a distinction with very little difference. I would imagine the percentage of iPhone customers who have elected not to use the cellphone or cellular data features of their iPhone is probably in the
1. It was a consensual update. No MacroSuck(TM) "forced update" stuff here!
2. You were warned before the phone was on sale that using the phone in the US meant AT&T.
3. You were warned before the phone was on sale that the only "apps" would be web-based.
4. You had 14 days under Apple's normal return policy to return the phone for a refund.
5. You were warned that this particular update may adversely affect modified phones.
It really is that simple. Anything else is just whining, and quite unbecoming of an adult...
Not to mention, Apple had alread committed (and wisely so) to using the WORLD-standard GSM. Their negotiations with Verizon hint that they may have had a phone circuit in development that was compatible with their antiquated cellphone network (remember, we don't make phone calls over EV-DO). So the question that is begged is: Are there ANY phones in the U.S. that CAN be used with EVERY carrier, from a practical, technical sense? Because of some of the fundamental differences (still) in frequencies, modulation techniques, packet structures, et frickin' CETERA, can someone actually design a phone that doesn't look like this that would satisfy the requirement to be TRULY "Unlocked".
An "unlocked" phone is fine in EUrope and other places where GSM is nearly ubiquitous; but in the U.S., it's not as happy of a situation. But even in EUrope, if a carrier doesn't want to mess with the infrastructure changes necessary to implement visual voicemail, all the "unlocking" will NOT bring that feature back.
Period.
The iPhone is not like a general-purpose computer; it is like a microwave oven, a router, a television set, a toaster, a TiVO, or a DVD player. In other words, it is an APPLIANCE. The /. crowd, like the people in this lawsuit, have to grow up, and get into the 1980s: In other words, there are embedded systems in a LOT of products; however, that does NOT mean that the manufacturer of your TV's remote control has to provide an SDK so you can cross-compile uCLinux to run on it; nor provide VoIP support for your Motorola Razor, etc.
If someone modded their TiVO to run OpenStep, or decompiled and rewrote their router's software so that it had better packet filtering, or played Pong, and the next CONSENTUALLY ACCEPTED firmware update made it into a finely crafted block of swiss cheese, capability-wise, would there be a lawsuit? Maybe, but not one that would prevail, let alone be granted "class" status!
Jobs laid down the development-law (at least for now) regarding the iPhone: No SDK. Web 2.0 "apps" only. And the "locked" law: Requires contract with AT&T (in the USA). He did this PUBLICLY, LONG before the iPhone went on sale. Not one single purchaser can claim ignorance of those conditions.
And yet, when someone wants to make their iPhone into something it was not developed for, regardless of the capabilities of the underlying OS, and then Apple wants to fix some stuff (and even add some features for free!), then WARNS PEOPLE OF MODIFIED PHONES THAT THEIR CONSENTUALLY ACCEPTED UPDATE MAY BREAK THEIR APPLIANCES, I sincerely believe that this lawsuit is, as it should be, doomed to fail.
Tough. Not Apple's fault. Any other position comes from simply being ignorant of contract law. Apple's phone is working to spec. Apple is in full compliance with thier part of the contract. And so is AT&T. Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone.
It's just - that - simple.
Offtopic: That's a great sig. Is that a quote, and if so, from who/where?
MOD PARENT UP!!!!
>We're all morons on this bus.
And so now The Firesign Theatre should sue YOU for creating a Derivative Work (riffing on their album title).
Lawyers In Love...
I have the opposite story.
My OS X 10.3.9 G5 machine has had every USB stick that I could get my hands on connected to it, and it has never Kernel Paniced, and in fact has mounted and been able to read and write to/from every single one.
Not so my XP machine at work. It was just fine with USB sticks (in fact it was my favorite way to transfer "work" that was too big to email, back and forth to home work. That is, until I "shared" a "real" USB hard drive so that Veritas Backup Exec could use it as a glorified "tape cartridge" to do the weekly "full" backup of our workgroup's server. After that, I have only gotten ONE brand of USB stick to work (intermittently!) in that computer.
Also, have you ever tried the "deadly" USB stick in even ONE other Mac? It could be a fairly arcane hardware problem on that particular machine.
What's the Bird's-eye lowdown on this Caper, whatever that means?
Ah, 18. That explains your incredible lack of wit.
For the record, I am neither ridiculous, nor have I ever fucked anyone's mother.
By the way, you might notice that what IU's president did was a DIRECT violation of Indiana Law AND IU Personnel policies.
NOW who's being ridiculous?
No, I sent it to several of the major news outlets in Indiana, as well as the IG's "hotline". How stupid do you think I am?
Actually, that was two statements and one question; so who's "ignorant" now?
However, please forgive my early-morning lack of sentence composition. I thought that most people reading my first statement (regarding back-room dealing) would recognize the tone as a SARCASTIC one. As for the other two (one is a question, not a statement), I think they stand as valid:
1. Indiana has a long history of deep-seated corruption and cronyism.
2. What is YOUR connection to Cha Cha?
BTW, I believe that the question begs an answer; so what is it?
Thanks for researching the links!
0 9
4 /ch1.html
t m
Here is what I just posted to our (Indiana's) do-nothing "Inspector General":
See the article on Slashdot.org (link below), and keep in mind that, all of a sudden, as of only a week or so ago, I noticed that the www.in.gov site's searches were ALSO powered by the AD SPONSORED search engine, "Cha Cha". I believe that this is a violation of IC 35-44-1-1 et seq., as well as, in the case of the IU board, as a State Funded university, its Personnel policies against Conflict of Interest (which also cite the Indiana Code section IC 35-44-1-3).
I have also alerted members of the local media of this glaring Conflict of Interest; so you might not want to simply "bury" this issue, as you have a history of doing with so many that are brought to your office's attention.
Kind Regards,
See these web links for more information:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/05/01332
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar4
http://www.indiana.edu/~uhrs/policies/uwide/coi.h
And then I sent the same message to several local news outlets. Let's see what happens...
I call shennanigans.
I use the state.in.gov site quite frequently, and noticed for the first time last week that the former search was replaced with "Powered by Cha Cha". Things don't happen that fast without someone pushing them. And I guarantee that IU's Board and the Indiana Technology Department (or whatever it is called) are far-enough apart in their NORMAL decision-making process, that this should NOT have happened so close together, time-wise.
No, there is back-room dealing going on here, for sure. And Indiana has a long, long, LONG history of deep-seated corruption and cronyism.
So, what is YOUR connection to Cha Cha?