|
|
|
Apple tries to put Mac clone maker out of business citing EULA terms
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 19 July, 2008
Apple is suing Psystar over their Mac clone, saying the terms of the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA) forbid the owner from installing it on anything but Apple hardware. They allege Copyright Infringement by Psystar, as well as Inducement of Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, Trademark Infringement, and Trade Dress Infringement. In short they're trying to put Psystar out of ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
jetyi83
Member
|
20. July 2008 @ 02:04 |
Link to this message
|
hey look, another reason to hate apple
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
20. July 2008 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy, apple hardware, what hardware are you referring too, because the last time i checked there was no apple logo on my Pentium, or on my Nvidia, or on my OCZ memory ether. oh wait you must me talking about that hardware lock on the motherboard so people couldn't install Non-Chiped Apple Stuff huh.
|
|
tmeyers
Newbie
|
20. July 2008 @ 15:19 |
Link to this message
|
I remember that IBM had a conflict with companies that cloned their mainframes around 1980 and I think IBM lost that battle. Although the clone makers eventually were wiped out by their high costs of keeping-up w/hardware changes.
I expect that Apple will lose this battle too. But, since the cost of the clone hardware engineering will stay low it will be a significant threat to Apple.
|
|
ripxrush
Junior Member
|
20. July 2008 @ 17:33 |
Link to this message
|
LMFAO! thats like me buying a cell phone & saying i have to use provider X! oh wait!... These guys are the only ones that get away with this Shit! What if M$ said i can only install Winblows on an Intel system, or say a Dell system! no home built, no hp or anything just Dell?! If you are gonna buy a mac clone you probobly wont buy a mac so apple take your $50 for the os & be happy with that sale & hope maybe someone will eventually buy your computer! Next sony will tell me that i have to use a sony dvd player to play any movie that sony had a hand in making!
|
|
djgizmo
Member
|
20. July 2008 @ 20:56 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DXR88:
Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...
Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.
Do I personally believe apple should limit themselves to apple branded hardware? No. I think they could take the market by storm if they opened up their licenses.
Do I believe they are right to sue? Yes. Their business model REQUIRES them to defend their software vigorously. If they do not, they might as well make their software open source (which isn't good for business)
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
20. July 2008 @ 23:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...
Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.
Do I personally believe apple should limit themselves to apple branded hardware? No. I think they could take the market by storm if they opened up their licenses.
Do I believe they are right to sue? Yes. Their business model REQUIRES them to defend their software vigorously. If they do not, they might as well make their software open source (which isn't good for business)
and by little dancing devils within my skull, i say they can take there EULA, twist it and shove it up there phat bums.
Open software is not good for business. your funny -_- . Linux, and Unix, have been around longer than Steve Jobs and his garage dork buddy's.
|
|
Lucidfish
Newbie
|
21. July 2008 @ 00:01 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...
Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.
Actually, just because something is stated in a EULA doesn't necessarily mean that those restrictions are legal to be placed upon the user in the first place. But it does give Apple a basis to take Psystar, or any other upstart, to court and bury them in legal fees. Happens all the time. Doesn't make it legal, or mean that Apple is actually right. With all of Apple's desktop computers basically being made by parts that you can buy off the counter, Apple might be looking at violating antitrust laws. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly, there is however something illegal about stifling competition. Which is what got MS in trouble in the 90's and also which caused the break up of AT&T to create the baby bells. This didn't happen because of a monopoly, this happened because of antitrust i.e. anti competition or in a more layman's terms anti-consumer.
One of the problems with AT&T was you had to use their phones, and only their phones. Sound familiar? It took a court case in the '70's to change that, which wasn't finally settled until the 80's. You could compare and extrapolate, the phone system was set up by and owned by AT&T, and AT&T said you can only use their equipment on their network ...so to speak. Apple has made it's OS, and has said it can only be run on it's sanctioned machines. Which are machines that you can go down to your local Best Buy and purchase. Is there a difference? Not much when looking at the raw practices. The main difference is that AT&T had a monopoly, where is apple does not. The courts ultimately sided with the consumer, and found such practices to be effectually illegal, or otherwise antitrust.
So to say that by legal straight forward terms Apple is in the right, isn't actually correct. Apple very well may be in the wrong. But the reality is Psystar probably doesn't have the capital to wade through a case like this in court. For example the At&T case took a better part of a decade to settle. That costs millions of dollars. So Psystar will probably fold, and all of this will be swept under the rug, until some big name company decides it could make some cash by doing the same thing. I am sure that will go to court as well, but as most lawsuits dealing with multi million dollar corporations, they settle out of court. At that point Apple will start selling their OS, to run on whatever machine like windows. At a highly inflated price of course.
|
|
lynchGOP
Suspended permanently
|
21. July 2008 @ 13:25 |
Link to this message
|
Ahhhhh........nothing better than reading a BOOK of a person's comments. Keep 'em short people. I lost interest after the 2nd sentence.
Agreed with first statement. Yet another reason to hate Apple. Bunch O' monopolistic pricks. Steve Jobs truly believes he is all high and mighty.
Basically I'd like to see someone PUT THE SMACK ON MAC!!!!!!!!!!!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. July 2008 @ 13:27
|
|
jnaks
Member
|
21. July 2008 @ 14:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lynchGOP:
Ahhhhh........nothing better than reading a BOOK of a person's comments. Keep 'em short people. I lost interest after the 2nd sentence.
Agreed with first statement. Yet another reason to hate Apple. Bunch O' monopolistic pricks. Steve Jobs truly believes he is all high and mighty.
Basically I'd like to see someone PUT THE SMACK ON MAC!!!!!!!!!!!
this article doesn't really mention that Psystar created an update system of their own to update the software through its own proxy so that APPLE's new updates won't create conflicts in their systems. sounds similar to the jailbreak gang, hehe. part of the issue is that Apple's store-bought OS's are termed for "upgrade use only (blah, blah, blah...for use on Apple hardware)." This is as opposed to being freely able to buy a full version of Windows at the store for personal installation. Dunno if I'm really for a company telling me what to do, but this company is using it for profitable gain rather than personal use -- which I think is the real crux of it all. If he was just a hack telling everyone how to do it, or selling a kit for them to do it themselves, that'd be quite a different story in my mind.
|
|
southrb
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. July 2008 @ 01:49 |
Link to this message
|
If this were so, why have all the automotive companies not jumped on the bandwagon? You buy a brsnd name car and the eula states that you can only install their brand name parts. Just imagine, a break job jumps in price to 1500.00, an oil change becomes 500.00, an air filter now costs 250.00. Satelite radio and cell phones become a thing of the past because of the eula of the car manufacturers eula. You cannot change the color of your vehicle, add lights for trailer towing, add gps or any other inovation because of the car manufacturers eula.
This is greed gone wild. If that is the world that you live in and subscribe to it is about time you sat down and did some soul searching.
Even hollywood was set up by individuals who would not accept the unreasonable dictates of the compact in New York. They even physically stole the cameras to make their first efforts.
I have been tempted to purchase one of these computers just to try out this operating system which I hear is far superior to "windows". Unfortunately the price is still too much.
In view of apple's position it will always be the runt of the litter.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. July 2008 @ 08:49 |
Link to this message
|
jetyi83, there is a large group of persons that love to be f$cked up the 0ss. Apple is for those people. It does fill a product nitch and is worshiped by the faithful.
|
|
doobedoo
Newbie
|
30. July 2008 @ 23:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...
Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.
Actually, just because something is stated in a EULA doesn't necessarily mean that those restrictions are legal to be placed upon the user in the first place. But it does give Apple a basis to take Psystar, or any other upstart, to court and bury them in legal fees. Happens all the time. Doesn't make it legal, or mean that Apple is actually right. With all of Apple's desktop computers basically being made by parts that you can buy off the counter, Apple might be looking at violating antitrust laws. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly, there is however something illegal about stifling competition. Which is what got MS in trouble in the 90's and also which caused the break up of AT&T to create the baby bells. This didn't happen because of a monopoly, this happened because of antitrust i.e. anti competition or in a more layman's terms anti-consumer.
One of the problems with AT&T was you had to use their phones, and only their phones. Sound familiar? It took a court case in the '70's to change that, which wasn't finally settled until the 80's. You could compare and extrapolate, the phone system was set up by and owned by AT&T, and AT&T said you can only use their equipment on their network ...so to speak. Apple has made it's OS, and has said it can only be run on it's sanctioned machines. Which are machines that you can go down to your local Best Buy and purchase. Is there a difference? Not much when looking at the raw practices. The main difference is that AT&T had a monopoly, where is apple does not. The courts ultimately sided with the consumer, and found such practices to be effectually illegal, or otherwise antitrust.
So to say that by legal straight forward terms Apple is in the right, isn't actually correct. Apple very well may be in the wrong. But the reality is Psystar probably doesn't have the capital to wade through a case like this in court. For example the At&T case took a better part of a decade to settle. That costs millions of dollars. So Psystar will probably fold, and all of this will be swept under the rug, until some big name company decides it could make some cash by doing the same thing. I am sure that will go to court as well, but as most lawsuits dealing with multi million dollar corporations, they settle out of court. At that point Apple will start selling their OS, to run on whatever machine like windows. At a highly inflated price of course.
|
|
doobedoo
Newbie
|
31. July 2008 @ 01:05 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Look if i purchase OS-X, its mine and a can install it on anything i so choose, hell i could install it on a Tandy...
Wrong wrong wrong. By legal straight forward terms, Apple is in the right. The definition of 'Apple Hardware' could be simplified to anything that is specifically sold by Apple. The EULA (End User Legal Agreement) specifically states that a person who purchases the software ,aka the user, agrees to use the software according to the makers design and also agrees to not circumvent the design.
Actually, just because something is stated in a EULA doesn't necessarily mean that those restrictions are legal to be placed upon the user in the first place. But it does give Apple a basis to take Psystar, or any other upstart, to court and bury them in legal fees. Happens all the time. Doesn't make it legal, or mean that Apple is actually right. With all of Apple's desktop computers basically being made by parts that you can buy off the counter, Apple might be looking at violating antitrust laws. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly, there is however something illegal about stifling competition. Which is what got MS in trouble in the 90's and also which caused the break up of AT&T to create the baby bells. This didn't happen because of a monopoly, this happened because of antitrust i.e. anti competition or in a more layman's terms anti-consumer.
One of the problems with AT&T was you had to use their phones, and only their phones. Sound familiar? It took a court case in the '70's to change that, which wasn't finally settled until the 80's. You could compare and extrapolate, the phone system was set up by and owned by AT&T, and AT&T said you can only use their equipment on their network ...so to speak. Apple has made it's OS, and has said it can only be run on it's sanctioned machines. Which are machines that you can go down to your local Best Buy and purchase. Is there a difference? Not much when looking at the raw practices. The main difference is that AT&T had a monopoly, where is apple does not. The courts ultimately sided with the consumer, and found such practices to be effectually illegal, or otherwise antitrust.
So to say that by legal straight forward terms Apple is in the right, isn't actually correct. Apple very well may be in the wrong. But the reality is Psystar probably doesn't have the capital to wade through a case like this in court. For example the At&T case took a better part of a decade to settle. That costs millions of dollars. So Psystar will probably fold, and all of this will be swept under the rug, until some big name company decides it could make some cash by doing the same thing. I am sure that will go to court as well, but as most lawsuits dealing with multi million dollar corporations, they settle out of court. At that point Apple will start selling their OS, to run on whatever machine like windows. At a highly inflated price of course.
I have been reading and listening to these moronic arguments for way too many years.
1. Psystar didn't pay one single penny of the billions of dollars that Apple has spent on research and development. So, if Psystar gets squashed by Big Bad Apple, I will be right there cheering Apple on. Kick em again, Steve ! Companies like Psystar are parasites. They take someone else's ideas and grift a few dollars from it. I hope Apple bankrupts them.
2. The licensing program of the 90s did not improve Apple's market position at all. In fact, Apple actually lost both market share and sales to several of their so called partners that, in spite of their contractual agreements to not pursue Apple's established customers, but rather grow new customers, they undercut Apple's pricing and grifted what they could while they could from an already established customer base. It was a happy day when all of them either bailed or got the boot. Getting rid of the Clones was one of the first GREAT things that Steve did upon returning to Apple.
3. OH CHRIST. Another Nerd who hates Apple because they make their own hardware and software and make both work incredibly well together. What is WRONG with you. If all you want to do is buy motherboards, chips, power supplies and BUTT UGLY cases in which to stuff all that garbage; then please do that and stop bitching about "The most innovative company of the 20TH CENTURY." I mean really ... find a better argument; this is one is simply ludicrous.
4. If I buy OS X, I can install it on whatever I want. Wah Wah Wah. Well, good luck with that Tandy installation. Tell you what, when you have built your own company from scratch and created a product that is actually worth buying, successfully brought it to market and fought countless bloody battles with fierce competitors in the real world, put every single penny that you have and all that you can borrow on the line, then maybe the world will accept your position. Until then, SHUT UP.
5. The price is too high. REALLY. As compared to what? So, let me think about this. I can buy a Mac which according to PC Magazine will actually run Windows faster and better than most PC hardware and I can also have the beautiful world of Macintosh. Technology rehabilitation for Windows users who are finally weary of spending their time with one utility program or another trying to understand those inane cryptic messages that make you want to use abusive language at the dinner table; slowly, you can ween yourself from the dark side. Come towards the light. Mac really is superior in EVERY way. Gee, it'd be a pity to spend a few extra dollars in a MAJOR PURCHASE to get something SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than the closest competition. Christ, that borders on making sense. What was I thinking.
6. ATT; yeah those dirty greed mongering corporate nazis. Built the largest network in the United States to the tune of billions and billions of ATT dollars. Fiber is expensive, people, even with government subsidy. Offering the most comprehensive 2 and 3G network coverage. Yeah man, that ATT; they're nothing but a bunch of greedy bastards. I'm removing them from my Christmas card list and then, I'm going to sit in my basement and gloat at my massive blow to the establishment. Well, I've had my contract with ATT, then Cingular and now ATT again, probably around 10 years. Great 2 & 3G coverage in my area, phone quality is great. Frankly, even if there wasn't an iPhone, I would still keep my contract with ATT because, I've never had a single major problem with them.
7. Would some of you please try to learn to spell and construct complete sentences. Do you really want the world reading trashy diatribe with your signature on it. And some of you just need to GROW UP. Don't criticise people and companies that are out there actually doing something. Everyone should be thrilled that Apple is alive and well, otherwise, we'd all probably still be looking at crappy plasma displays and running MS DOS.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. July 2008 @ 09:03 |
Link to this message
|
doobedoo, if you click the edit icon in the upper left hand corner of your message you can revise it.
This thread needed an Apple supporter and your post was quite articulate.
I guess your theory is the reason Macs do not sell well is that most of the population are idiots. Well seeing who we elect to run our governments and driving on any road is proof enough that the population is full of mental midgets.
I would drop the flaming of users that are not as articulate as you just because of their grammar and spelling. They out number you 20 to 1. Just because they are not articulate does not mean they are stupid and they get their point across. I can think of several I wouldn?t want to flame me and I normally do not mind being flamed.
Welcome to the foray!
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
31. July 2008 @ 12:37 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If I buy OS X, I can install it on whatever I want. Wah Wah Wah. Well, good luck with that Tandy installation. Tell you what, when you have built your own company from scratch and created a product that is actually worth buying, successfully brought it to market and fought countless bloody battles with fierce competitors in the real world, put every single penny that you have and all that you can borrow on the line, then maybe the world will accept your position. Until then, SHUT UP.
its is mine i bought it i can do whatever i want to with it, and you not going to stop me, or anybody else.
your also in violation of Rule #6
Quote:
OH CHRIST. Another Nerd who hates Apple because they make their own hardware and software and make both work incredibly well together. What is WRONG with you. If all you want to do is buy motherboards, chips, power supplies and BUTT UGLY cases in which to stuff all that garbage; then please do that and stop bitching about "The most innovative company of the 20TH CENTURY." I mean really ... find a better argument; this is one is simply ludicrous.
Wrong, Apple does not make there own hardware, they Chip the hardware With a special BIOS to allow it to run on MAC.
Again in violation of rule #6.
Quote:
The price is too high. REALLY. As compared to what? So, let me think about this. I can buy a Mac which according to PC Magazine will actually run Windows faster and better than most PC hardware and I can also have the beautiful world of Macintosh. Technology rehabilitation for Windows users who are finally weary of spending their time with one utility program or another trying to understand those inane cryptic messages that make you want to use abusive language at the dinner table; slowly, you can ween yourself from the dark side. Come towards the light. Mac really is superior in EVERY way. Gee, it'd be a pity to spend a few extra dollars in a MAJOR PURCHASE to get something SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than the closest competition. Christ, that borders on making sense. What was I thinking.
So if they can run MS on MAC Why cant it Mac Run on PC. Kind of hypocritical don't you think.
I haven't the time to wast on petty squabbles, this will be my last post here. flame me or any other members and you will be seeing a Moderator.
|
|
doobedoo
Newbie
|
1. August 2008 @ 03:05 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If I buy OS X, I can install it on whatever I want. Wah Wah Wah. Well, good luck with that Tandy installation. Tell you what, when you have built your own company from scratch and created a product that is actually worth buying, successfully brought it to market and fought countless bloody battles with fierce competitors in the real world, put every single penny that you have and all that you can borrow on the line, then maybe the world will accept your position. Until then, SHUT UP.
its is mine i bought it i can do whatever i want to with it, and you not going to stop me, or anybody else.
your also in violation of Rule #6
You're right; I'm not going to stop you. Actually, you can't do whatever you want?that's against the rules of civilization. But you can sure try. Anarchy rules, right? Although, you might end up paying someone a truckload of money for violating their copyrights, patents or intellectual property laws, but hey, go for it. I don't understand your position, but more power to you.
Quote:
OH CHRIST. Another Nerd who hates Apple because they make their own hardware and software and make both work incredibly well together. What is WRONG with you. If all you want to do is buy motherboards, chips, power supplies and BUTT UGLY cases in which to stuff all that garbage; then please do that and stop bitching about "The most innovative company of the 20TH CENTURY." I mean really ... find a better argument; this is one is simply ludicrous.
Wrong, Apple does not make there own hardware, they Chip the hardware With a special BIOS to allow it to run on MAC.
Again in violation of rule #6.
Oh come on, NOBODY makes everything. All manufacturers buy chips, power supplies, etc. Can you imagine a company that tried to control every single aspect of manufacturing? Their plant would be the size of Alaska.
What I am talking about is Apple Engineering. It is their hardware design and the integration of their software that make Macs work so well. I started with CPM, then Apple DOS, MS DOS, Windows and Macintosh. I find the Mac operating system to be the most reliable and easiest to use system that I've ever experienced. It's not perfect, but, there's no such thing in the computer world.
Quote:
The price is too high. REALLY. As compared to what? So, let me think about this. I can buy a Mac which according to PC Magazine will actually run Windows faster and better than most PC hardware and I can also have the beautiful world of Macintosh. Technology rehabilitation for Windows users who are finally weary of spending their time with one utility program or another trying to understand those inane cryptic messages that make you want to use abusive language at the dinner table; slowly, you can ween yourself from the dark side. Come towards the light. Mac really is superior in EVERY way. Gee, it'd be a pity to spend a few extra dollars in a MAJOR PURCHASE to get something SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than the closest competition. Christ, that borders on making sense. What was I thinking.
So if they can run MS on MAC Why cant it Mac Run on PC. Kind of hypocritical don't you think.
I haven't the time to wast on petty squabbles, this will be my last post here. flame me or any other members and you will be seeing a Moderator.
It's not hypocritical, it's quality control. Apple doesn't want to get in the business of trying to write their OS for PCs. Impossible to support. There are, what, 5000 PC hardware manufacturers out there and all of them are competing on price, therefore, they cut corners everywhere possible to keep cost low and sales high. And they have problems all the time. The Mac has it's occasional burb, but, compared to my Windows experience, the problems are significantly fewer on a Mac.
Apple engineers, okay, ... ASSEMBLE ... their hardware and the OS engineers write the software for the hardware thus ensuring that everything works as well as possible thereby eliminating a huge amount of user dissatisfaction.
All of my friends that use Windows have problems and gripe about it incessantly. Yet, many of them also tow the Redmond line and never miss an opportunity to bash Apple. It boggles my mind.
What will the moderator do? Kick me out of the blog?
Well, for any offense I have caused, my apologies. I've been in the industry for 20 years ... guess I'm a little too seasoned and jaded.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. August 2008 @ 08:02 |
Link to this message
|
You have to break the rules for a moderator to get involved. You comments are not close to that. They have the power to just blow you away, suspend you or anything they want to do to you. Being a newbie gives you added protection.
I hate Microsoft but I hate Apple much more. Apple wants to 'own' you. I find that repulsive. I don't like paying money to get pushed around.
I will not upgrade to Vista and I have had automatic uopdates turned off for a year. If I feel the need for a new OS it will be Linux.
Apple is for persons that care more about how their computer looks than being able to re-configure it on the fly. Apple is for persons that will sacrifice power for being easy.
I like to be able to upgrade my graphics card so I can run a new game. I prefer the ugly big box that allows be to swap out anything I what to when ever I want. I also like the value of a PC. I just bought parts that will take me beyond the Mac for about $500 in the areas that count for me. I will scrap everything but my SATA drives. The motherboard allows 6 internal and 2 external SATA drives. I am sure wanting a computer like that must sound crazy to you.
Apple has a reputation with me of making bold faced lies about what the Mac could do for decades. Half the persons I know that bought Macs could not run the PC software they were told would run on the Mac before they bought it. The other half just wanted simple computer functionality. These persons were happy with their Mac.
Now that the OS written for a Intel platform much may change.
|
|
doobedoo
Newbie
|
2. August 2008 @ 13:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
You have to break the rules for a moderator to get involved. You comments are not close to that. They have the power to just blow you away, suspend you or anything they want to do to you. Being a newbie gives you added protection.
I hate Microsoft but I hate Apple much more. Apple wants to 'own' you. I find that repulsive. I don't like paying money to get pushed around.
I will not upgrade to Vista and I have had automatic uopdates turned off for a year. If I feel the need for a new OS it will be Linux.
Apple is for persons that care more about how their computer looks than being able to re-configure it on the fly. Apple is for persons that will sacrifice power for being easy.
I like to be able to upgrade my graphics card so I can run a new game. I prefer the ugly big box that allows be to swap out anything I what to when ever I want. I also like the value of a PC. I just bought parts that will take me beyond the Mac for about $500 in the areas that count for me. I will scrap everything but my SATA drives. The motherboard allows 6 internal and 2 external SATA drives. I am sure wanting a computer like that must sound crazy to you.
Apple has a reputation with me of making bold faced lies about what the Mac could do for decades. Half the persons I know that bought Macs could not run the PC software they were told would run on the Mac before they bought it. The other half just wanted simple computer functionality. These persons were happy with their Mac.
Now that the OS written for a Intel platform much may change.
Apple wants to own you? Well, regardless of which platform you subscribe to: Windows or Macintosh, you become a dependent of that system. You invest in software particular to the platform and this is fundamentally why users are reluctant to change after becoming institutionalized by the platform to which they have subscribed.
Believe me, if you favor Microsoft over Apple, then Microsoft is just as much your keeper as if your support was with Apple. I'm not trying to be insulting, but, this is not a valid argument. It smacks of misinformation and emotional bias, which we all have. But you are certainly entitled to believe what you wish.
Your next line is incredible; you've just defined exactly why I can't stand Windows. "You've had automatic updates turned off for a year." Why? Problems perhaps.
Your next OS will be Linux. Fantastic. I'm sure you're aware of this, but just in case, OS X is based on BCS Unix, one of the oldest and most mature versions of Unix available. And, Apple has an open source community that feeds it. If operating at the kernel level is your desire, you can certainly do the same with OS X.
Your next comments are baseless, biased opinions: "Apple is for persons that care more about how their computer looks than being able to re-configure it on the fly. Apple is for persons that will sacrifice power for being easy."
Oh brother, I don't know when you last looked at a Mac, but, this statement is just simply not true.
I do care about how my computer looks and it is true that Apple has been a design leader in computer technology for decades. Sacrificing power for easy...are you kidding me?
Every article that I have read over the past 3 years from Newsweek, PC Magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal?all reputable sources, have given the Mac the highest honors that you can get, not only in design, but in performance as well. Apple has had five consecutive quarters of increased Mac sales from the previous year's quarterly performance. Macintosh has a higher percentage of market share than any individual computer company. True, collectively, PC market share is dominant?but that just isn't the whole picture.
Dell has been tanking for two straight years. Stagnation in sales, losing market share, massive layoffs. Dozens of PC manufacturers have gone out of business entirely and yet in the same timeframe, Apple has grown market share and is, even today, hiring as fast as they can find talent.
"Apple has a reputation with me of making bold faced lies about what the Mac could do for decades. Half the persons I know that bought Macs could not run the PC software they were told would run on the Mac before they bought it. The other half just wanted simple computer functionality. These persons were happy with their Mac."
Really? I run both vertical and shrink wrapped Windows applications on my Mac. I've done so successfully with a Bootcamp installation and using virtualization software. No problems here. Sounds like more bias to me.
Simple computer functionality. This is also biased, factually baseless commentary. Every time I get in a tangle with some PC bigot, they whip out this line.
The only area that I know of where Macintosh has suffered a significant lack of exposure, is in games. But you know what, Apple had the largest turnout of developers this year in the history of the company. In fact, they had so many developers applying for admission to DEVCON 08, they had to turn many away. A large number of game developers were there. I predict in the future, even this argument against the Mac will no longer be valid.
But in terms of what a Mac can do...I can do anything on a Mac BETTER than I can on a PC. And usually, if an application doesn't work on a Mac as well as it does a PC, it's because it's been programmed to not be as friendly with a Mac. Two perfect examples of this are: Microsoft Office and Quickbooks, both coincidentally are products owned by Microsoft. Hmmmm. Looks like tactical politics to me.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. August 2008 @ 15:55 |
Link to this message
|
Yes Apple wants to own you!
That is basicly what this article is about. You by software that demand you use it the way they want.
I never have tried to defend Microsoft. They are rotten to the core. I believe Apple is much worse. I don't update because I fear them more than I do the trackers. I fear Apple even more. I don't want their crap on my computer. I know several folks that added some tunes to their ipod illegally and itunes punished them by erasing all their music on their ipod. They had been doing that off an on for years then WHACK! They should have had their automatic updates turned off and paid the price for that stupidity. I am sure you approve but they wised up and deleted itunes from their computer.
I don't really know what better means to you. Most of what I do than is not disk intensive is fast enough for me. I you are going to tell me that disks run faster on a Mac I will know you are nuts.
|
|
doobedoo
Newbie
|
2. August 2008 @ 19:17 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
Yes Apple wants to own you!
That is basicly what this article is about. You by software that demand you use it the way they want.
I never have tried to defend Microsoft. They are rotten to the core. I believe Apple is much worse. I don't update because I fear them more than I do the trackers. I fear Apple even more. I don't want their crap on my computer. I know several folks that added some tunes to their ipod illegally and itunes punished them by erasing all their music on their ipod. They had been doing that off an on for years then WHACK! They should have had their automatic updates turned off and paid the price for that stupidity. I am sure you approve but they wised up and deleted itunes from their computer.
I don't really know what better means to you. Most of what I do than is not disk intensive is fast enough for me. I you are going to tell me that disks run faster on a Mac I will know you are nuts.
"I know several folks that added some tunes to their ipod illegally and itunes punished them by erasing all their music on their ipod. They had been doing that off an on for years then WHACK! They should have had their automatic updates turned off and paid the price for that stupidity. I am sure you approve but they wised up and deleted itunes from their computer."
WRONG. You don't buy software. You buy a license to use the software and the owner of the software does have the right to define terms of use. Again, I hope Apple puts Psystar out of business.
If you are saying that your friends adding music that was downloaded illegally or copied illegally in any way, then I would say they are guilty of copyright infringement. For some reason, a lot of people seem to feel that it's okay to violate copyright laws. However, these same people would never agree that it was okay for someone to steal their car. In my book, theft is theft. Period. I know this is a hotly debated topic, but in my mind there is no debate. If you unlawfully take property from a person or even a company that holds the rights to the property, you are committing a crime. Because software and digital music are so easily copied and downloaded, it blurs the issue. I guess it really comes down to the character of the individual; it shouldn't be what you can get away with; it should be what is right and wrong and you should know the difference.
I have tons of music in iTunes; all of it has either been ripped from CDs that I own or downloaded from the iTunes store. I have never had a problem that I wasn't able to resolve with iTunes support. I know that there are lots of alternatives to iTunes. iTunes doesn't work for you, find something else. Although I will say that there are over 30 million iTunes users and I suspect that things can't be that screwed up or more customers would find something else.
The speed of drives is relative to the drive mechanism, the I/O channel, how much RAM you have, processor cache, speed and design. ESATA SATA 7200 RPM 10000 RPMs. Just depends on what you need. You can certainly configure a Mac Pro with up to 4 SATA drives. Not fast enough: Fiber card and RAID.
Funny that the dominant platform in post production video editing and sound engineering is a MAC. There isn't a more disk intensive, RAM demanding environment than that, except maybe animation and rendering, which are also dominant universes of the Mac.
I'm not nuts; I just prefer to debate with people who are well informed. You are not.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
2. August 2008 @ 20:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
hehe
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
2. August 2008 @ 20:35 |
Link to this message
|
lol::: just laughing at the "apple wants to own you" connemt.. That's great..
Some poor n00b a couple of months ago, a long time mac owner and user went bought himself an ipod classic.... guess what, to put any legally bought itunes content on it apple required him to pay out for a new pc simply because his 5 or 6 year old mac wasn't up to running leopard (which the classic looks for)
Our solution?... dreamlinux = free, and roll in azureus for totally free no fekkin itunes crappy drm filled expensive low bitrate locked out rubbish mp3's (or their loved m4p's)..
Screw apple. They take an open source operating system, stick a load of drm and a eula on it, some pretties and some software blatently filched from the FOSS community and force people to pay through the nose.. they are as bad as M$ but in a different attempt at a monopolistic method.
Give your mac a boost.. get rid of the rubbish apple bloatware and eula and install openBSD.. same thing after all. ;)
Just another thing while somebody is standing up for a Eula that attempts to be global...
There is a very good possibility that in the country this other caomany are based the Eula breaks their local state rights.. so Eula be damned.. If the laws of the country I live in give me the right to reverse engineer and copy software then that's the long and short of it, and there isn't anything apple or anybody else can do about it..
Jobs and Gates.. no wonder they fell out.. probably couldn't decide on the best way to really shit on the consumer when given a choice of two.. and didn't think they would get away with doing both from the same company....
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. August 2008 @ 20:45
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. August 2008 @ 07:54 |
Link to this message
|
You should have quit while you were ahead. I don't know and really don't care if Apple can make better use of the hardware than Microsoft. I suspect if it does I suspect it is not a big difference but again I really don't know and don't care. I would not buy a MAC if it ran twice as fast because I can't stand the interface. However, I am pretty sure HDs like SATAs are almost completely software independent.
Does the Apple logo give hard disks Bionic powers?
Maybe if I put an Apple logo on my car it will fly or do I need to pray to the Apple god first?
If you look on the drive specifications they do not have specification for different OSs.
I did not see anything in your post or in any of the literature I could find that would suggest your claim that HDs run faster on a Mac. If I am wrong, inform me!
I do not claim to be an expert on hard disks but I know a little. Hard disks are one of the devices that are pretty much independent to the OS. The OS gives instructions then the HD executes them. Even if the instructions take longer on a PC the instruction is only a tiny part of the over all job. If they had to make calls to the OS as they were transferring data they would run like crap. That happens when you run a HD through a USB port. I do know the CPU is involved in data translations with a USB port and might be affected by the OS. That is why the same HD runs so much slower if it is connected to a USB port. I really can't believe the hard disk runs faster on a Mac than a PC. Unless you can come up with hard facts on seek times or even transfer rates being truly improved on a Mac I will continue to think you are nuts. I do not consider a few nano seconds difference on a one minute file transfer as being significant. To me, that is unnoticeable (the same).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. August 2008 @ 12:27
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
4. August 2008 @ 13:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
You should have quit while you were ahead. I don't know and really don't care if Apple can make better use of the hardware than Microsoft. I suspect if it does I suspect it is not a big difference but again I really don't know and don't care. I would not buy a MAC if it ran twice as fast because I can't stand the interface. However, I am pretty sure HDs like SATAs are almost completely software independent.
Does the Apple logo give hard disks Bionic powers?
Maybe if I put an Apple logo on my car it will fly or do I need to pray to the Apple god first?
If you look on the drive specifications they do not have specification for different OSs.
I did not see anything in your post or in any of the literature I could find that would suggest your claim that HDs run faster on a Mac. If I am wrong, inform me!
I do not claim to be an expert on hard disks but I know a little. Hard disks are one of the devices that are pretty much independent to the OS. The OS gives instructions then the HD executes them. Even if the instructions take longer on a PC the instruction is only a tiny part of the over all job. If they had to make calls to the OS as they were transferring data they would run like crap. That happens when you run a HD through a USB port. I do know the CPU is involved in data translations with a USB port and might be affected by the OS. That is why the same HD runs so much slower if it is connected to a USB port. I really can't believe the hard disk runs faster on a Mac than a PC. Unless you can come up with hard facts on seek times or even transfer rates being truly improved on a Mac I will continue to think you are nuts. I do not consider a few nano seconds difference on a one minute file transfer as being significant. To me, that is unnoticeable (the same).
While not necessarily true,the following are independent from the OS. Memory,CPU. HardDisks are not even 1% independent from the OS, like they used to be. i remember having to type in the binary instructions to the HardDisks to get it to start on the 80186 & 80286. the only thing that happens now is a post, to see if the hardware initializes correctly,the only independent Software for harddrives have are S.M.A.R.T.-Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology.
other than that the only way to get a harddisk to function, is to have an MBR in place and a proper format such as NTFS, MFS, or EXT4, or Rieser4.
obviously though, i don't really care for apple or Steve and his Band'O Garage Dorks, for that matter. although it is good for a editor's whether it be Video or Music, or picture processing, but then again Linux has dominated that market as well. Linux has a foothold in just about every thing, the only thing it really can't do is easy gaming it can game it just takes awhile to setup.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. August 2008 @ 14:53 |
Link to this message
|
Thankx DXR88,
I was pretty sure but I was out of my solid expertise so I wanted wiggle room. I was sure I would be corrected or vindicated by some expert. I didn't want to fall into the same trap doobedoo fell into. If you spout garbage here, someone will put you straight.
I would be running Linux if it wasn't for thousands of dollars invested in software that runs on MS platform. I am a developer and one of the languages I use does not run on Linux. I am convinced I will not upgrade any MS products unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't want to give those son of a guns any money. Plus they are now screwing up every thing the make. How can you have a product that ran fine for years then put out trash???? Don't they test??? Why do they completely change interfaces in version 7? I am sure you have only suits (used car salesmen) in management. If you had even one technical manager he/she would have stopped that nonsense. I expect things to screw up in version 1 but not version 7!
UNIX was conceived in an atmosphere where mistakes were not tolerated much. Both Apple and MS 'grew up' with more forgiving users. What is amazing is they (Unix/Linux) have yet to put out garbage.
If Macs could utilize the hardware so well you would see the hardware intensive apps like Oracle run on a Mac.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. August 2008 @ 15:10
|
|
