329 posts • joined 17 Aug 2007
Sure, it would be cool if every new feature of every spec were supported by every browser manufacturer instantly upon release, but it is common knowledge within the professional web development community that production sites are typically built to conform to specs that are at least several years old. It's always been that way. Sites you build, today, must conform to browsers built yesterday.
"For some clients (most specifically those in big corporates), that means having to test in ie6, ie7, ie8 and soon, ie9..."
All of the "big corporates" that I have worked for seem pretty standardized. I've never seen one with so many different OSs in their network. Typically, their IT departments do a pretty good job of making sure everyone is using the same level of gear, with maybe a couple of outliers.
If you are referring to generic web development testing, then, yes, you do need to test on all of those browsers, even the new ones from Firefox. And you also need to test on Macs with various flavors of Safari and Chrome, and on other Windows browsers/versions, as well, like Firefox 2-3.x, Opera, Safari, Chrome, and even on Linux boxes with FF, Chrome, Konqueror, etc., should your market require it. Then you move over to mobile device testing, where you need to test iOS, WebOS, Symbian, WindowsMobile, etc., and the variety of browsers available for each of those OSs.
So, if you're complaining that (a) there are parts of the emerging standards that you can't use in production, yet, and that (b) the release of another MS browser means an addition to your testing suite, well, that's all part of the fun. No complaining allowed!
Unhealthy Gushing, Dude
"All apple cares about is an app market free of crap, providing some customer comfort in trusting devs, and putting the apps in easy to find places with consistently available and accurate descriptions. It's a customer service. They barely even profit off of it."
Really? You mean, like they're in it for the good karma? And, as for profit ...
"Pixelmator seems pretty happy to have grossed $1 million in 20 days on the Mac App Store."
Let's do a tiny bit of math ... hmmm ... that's somewhere around $300,000 to Apple in 20 days from a single developer. I wonder if their costs even came close? Actually, I don't. I am quite certain that Apple's expenses for hosting that developer's goods are far, far lower than 30% of the take.
No, Michael C, Apple is not in it to make you feel all warm and fuzzy to be one of their sycophants. Apple is in it to make as much money as they can. One of the methods they have chosen to accomplish that goal is to open the App Store, and other methods include closing their systems, limiting opportunities and squashing dissent. Make no mistake ... Apple is a major United States corporation whose primary goal is to keep the money rolling in.
If it helps, your unhealthy gushing about the company IS doing something ... it's spreading the idea that a human being can have a schoolyard crush on a giant corporation despite abundant evidence that said corporate entity cares less for them than it does for it's shredding machines, thereby potentially infecting others who read your embarrassing flattery with a similar disease. However one hopes that, sooner or later, your brain will re-engage and you will be able to recognize that you are simply acting as a propaganda tool for Apple, who certainly would not do the same, for you.
Apple's a freaking capitalist role model, dude. Get over your puppy love.
The allegations are that the condoms he used in each instance broke during the sex act, and that Assange should have know it and stopped plooking right at the moment of breakage, if for nothing else than to reload with a fresh skin. He is being charged with rape because the condoms broke and he didn't stop, not because he wasn't using one, and its the broken condoms that the ladies kept as evidence.
"Linus" Torvalds. Not that I'm being anal, or anything.
Francisco Franco is STILL dead!
= chirp chirp =
What ... no old school Saturday Night Live fans out there?
Ooooh ... so close!
Phorm et al. don't bother with the servers ... they use the ISP's pipes for their tracking.
Now go get that raise from your boss who'll be amazed at your IT acumen!
If not asking for help, what would you suggest if it were a Windows user who couldn't figure out how to change their resolution?
Under both operating systems it's exceedingly easy for someone with (a) more than a couple of days' experience with any modern UI menu metaphor and (b) a serious interest in accomplishing the task to execute it.
However occasionally some little problem like this turns up, and sometimes the person who runs into the issue has no idea how to search Google for "<os_here> change screen resolution".
For the record, here's how to do it in either OS:
Windows: Start -> Control Panel -> Display -> Settings -> Screen Resolution
Ubuntu: System -> Preferences -> Monitors -> Resolution
(Note that there is also a right-click alternative in Windows, but it would take a lot more to explain clicking on an 'empty' area on the Desktop than these simple instructions did, and rarely are two sets of instructions for accomplishing the same task useful to someone who couldn't figure it out on their own.)
As you can see, it is FAR more simple and intuitive to accomplish this task in Windows*, but sometimes a suggestion to find someone who knows how to do it already can keep a person with little patience and limited experience (like the op) from going completely insane.
*Snark? You decide.
And what *you* failed to notice, AC, is that Apple has completely abandoned that initial proposal. Hmmm ... someone who believes that pre-release hype is just as good as post-release performance ... Let me guess ... you voted Republican (or the UK equivalent), didn't you?
All decisions made by Apple are made exclusively so that Apple can make more money.
While this is not unusual, and, in fact, most business schools preach this very sermon, this revelation does comes as somewhat of a surprise for all of those Apple-lovers who seem to continue to have an irrational expectation that their love will be returned.
No, sad little people. Your love is wasted on Apple. They care not how deep your love is for them. As long as your pockets remain similarly deep, they have no motivation to try to understand or please you.
Better to love Wall Street, as it has demonstrated greater responsiveness to its customers and interest in its customers' desires than Apple ever will. As long as Apple remains a who-gives-a-rats-ass-what-the-idiots-who-pay-our-obscenely-unjustified-prices-think corporation driven by Mephisto's minions, you'll not hear a single word of affection from the aloof object of your desire.
Time to take the poison. Forever there will you remain with worms that are thy chamber-maids.
What a monumentally ignorant statement!! You are to be commended, sir. I don't think I shall see the like, again.
Your comment is akin to saying "The guy who first put an ashtray into a car: accidental genius; Henry Ford; accidentally developed modern industrialized society."
Again, my hearty congratulations on exceeding the bounds of expected idiocy with your comment. Absolutely brilliant!
And another thing ...
Scott Rosenberg (Salon, et al.) speaks well to one of the notions Sir Berners-Lee brings up ... that walled gardens are less useful than open gardens, which is why an open WWW is more valuable than the closed WWW that we see forming underneath our feet.
In yesterday's blog post (http://www.wordyard.com/2010/11/21/why-the-daily-murdochs-tablet-newspap...) he talks about why Rupert Murdoch's dream for a tablet-only newspaper will likely fail, and he does it by bringing up some of the things Sir Berners-Lee brings up with regard to operating within walled gardens. A brief quote:
"Why do people love getting their news online? It’s timely, it’s convenient, it’s fast — all that matters. Murdoch’s tablet could match that (though it sounds like it may drop the ball on “timely” and “fast”). But even more important than that, online news is connected: it’s news that you can respond to, link to, share with friends. It is part of a back-and-forth that you are also a part of.
Murdoch’s tablet thingie will be something else — a throwback to the isolation of pre-Web publications. Like a paywalled website, this tablet “paper” will discourage us from talking about its contents because we can’t link to it. In other words, like a paywalled site, it expects us to pay for something that is actually less useful and valuable than the free competition."
I totally agree with that position, and believe that it reflects one of the primary points Sir Berners-Lee was making ... paywalls restrict the free flow of information, which results in a less-valuable WWW, not a more-valuable WWW.
The whole point?
Spoken like a true Facebooker: Closed-minded, uninformed and bitchy.
No, the "whole point" of the World Wide Web is information SHARING. That's why Berners-Lee distilled the HTML subset from the existing SGML language in the first place: To makew is more simple to SHARE documents over a network.
Now the Internet, of course, is quite different from the WWW, which is what we are celebrating, this month. The Internet has been around at least since 1967, nearly 25 years prior to the WWW, and, coincidentally, it was ALSO built for information SHARING.
The WWW thing is, and has always been, one of openness and progress through shared contribution. See? Learning things is good! It helps keep you from seeming completely uninformed when you decide to speak in public. Learn first, THEN speak.
Great idea! Let's kill the encryption industry! I can see the future ads now ... "PGP: Pretty Good Privacy, but not likely to get any better than that, because there are cracking keys all over the place!"
Ahhh. I love the smell of totalitarianism in the morning.
Not only that...
... everything Google gathered during its sweeps was not "private", as it was offered up freely for public consumption by those who supplied it. Just like shouting into your cellphone on the bus offers your conversation, sans privacy, to anyone within earshot, if those people within earshot happen to be recording the ambient sounds of the bus, the shouts get captured. No expectation of privacy is formed when the actions necessary to provide privacy are not taken. And, no, ignorance is not a "privacy" defense. ("I didn't know my shouting could be heard by others!")
Not Sure What You Mean
Did my comment have anything to do with who supplies the JVM?
I'm pretty sure I was providing a path to a Java-friendly development environment to a poster who expressed an interest in discovering one. And, if you recall, I was promoting Ubuntu ... which also has its base JVM built by Sun/Oracle, just like Microsoft does. (See if you can figure out *why* Apple doesn't use Sun/Oracle's services ... I'll leave it to you as an exercise that you very badly need.)
Surely you aren't disagreeing with my statement about how much Java is being used outside of the Macintosh world? Because that would be simply ignorant.
Have a nice day!
Buy yourself a screaming Windows 7 laptop ... there are many in the 3GB/360GB/<$400 territory ... download the incredibly easy-to-use Ubuntu Windows installer ... run the thing ... reboot ... BAM ... a new, dynamic Linux partition and full-fledged Linux/Windows dual boot is yours in under an hour.
While you use the long-standing Ubuntu Software Repositories, with one-click installation of tens of thousands of free (as in beer) Apps, you can remember how cool Apple was when they "innovated" the AppStore.
And for those of you who are stupidly commenting about how little Java impacts your daily lives, you are clearly uninformed. Java is running, right now, in your car, in your telephone control centers and in hundreds of other places you use every day. Just because you don't see it on your desktop doesn't mean it's not the number one most-used programming language on the planet, right now. There's a reason for that. That reason is its portability between virtually any system configuration. That includes the desktop and server systems you can see with your own two eyes and thousands of variants of mobile and embedded systems ... even extending into hospitals and other critical environments.
Jobs announcing that his company won't be providing a JVM, refusing to open his company's APIs in any significant way, and threatening every type of developer with his insane knee-jerk responses will push developers away from his platform. Both the absence of a native JVM (because, face it, Oracle doesn't give a crap if the tiny fraction of systems that Apple represents get a native JVM) and the instability of Jobs' management decisions make for an unstable, uninviting environment.
Like Sampler, I see their point, but to build in backdoors completely defeats the purpose of the encryption technology. Next step ... outlawing (only for Americans, of course) the ability to use any type of encryption software that the Feds can't crack. Say "bye bye" PGP.
Re: Service restart
As long as Gmail Talk (or whatever they're calling it) is running, the service will not restart. It dies whenever the Talk system tries to access it with a (console) error about a non-object being passed ... or something about an object ... I don't have the system handy to check, just now.
I'm not waiting around, though ... when they fix it, they'll fix it. I see lots of Linux users with similar errors in the Google help forums. I'll just continue to use Pidgin or Empathy, as I have been doing. Just passing along info ...
Oh ... and I'm running Ubuntu 10.4 Lucid Lynx, at this point, no longer Hardy Heron. Sorry. Old habits, and all ...
Not ready for primetime ...
Running the new plugin under Ubuntu Hardy (2.6.23-24 kernel) with the ALSA audio manager is borked.
On system boot, audio works fine, in and out. But when Gmail is launched with the new chat binaries installed I get video and I can hear just fine, but my audio input is dead for the rest of the session, requiring a reboot to get it back.
Getting there, though. Not quite better than nothing, but getting there.
Maybe for you. But not where I live. For me, it's legal activity. Sorry you don't like it, but you not liking it, and your government not liking it, sure aren't going to stop people and marketing corporations from using the tools they have at their disposal.
Let's remember, too, that this article is about Apple's privacy protections, or lack thereof. You commenting on the policies of Microsoft or Oracle or Wal-Mart or Uncle Jim's Jams and Jellies is clearly irrelevant.
Re: I still don't get it
You're thinking too small ... Apple is attempting to patent the CONCEPT of applications on mobile devices. Full stop. The CONCEPT of APPLICATIONS. On mobile devices, as opposed to those that already exist for non-mobile devices. Surprised, yet?
@Ian Michael Gumby
Hey there, Tea Party ... having fun during this Administration? It was almost like you had a point, for a second. Mind numb, yet? Oh, and FYI, the executive branch has nothing to do with the ridiculous antics of the USPTO.
Have a happy mid-term!
Venture Capital Ring A Bell?
Where would Facebook be if Zuckerberg had not gotten that seed money? You really think the venture capitalist that fronted Zuck the cash deserves nothing for the success of the venture he funded? Maybe not in China, but in America there's a direct correlation between shelling out cash as an investment in a company and getting something in return.
Two Types of People
Vint Cerf is a creator. Net worth? Average. Inventions? The Internet's primary protocols.
Mark Andreeson is a creator. Net worth? Average. Inventions? The modern web browser.
Zuckerberg is a salesman. Net worth? Billions. Inventions? Courts are deciding.
Steve Jobs is a salesman. Net worth? Billions. Inventions? None.
And according to claims made in the first "who made Facebook" lawsuit that Zuck settled for $69M, in fact he *DID* creep into someone's student halls and steal a disc while they were asleep.
They tried to do environmental tests, but their drones kept losing the test devices.
"They could, for instance flag it to display a message at launch explaining the potential problem and asking for removal or not.."
Using which API? The one every Android developer is forced to use? Oh wait ... that's Apple's developers. So which API are you recommending Google use to insert this "launch" message?
The reality is that by using the Marketplace to install the app, Google obtains a mechanism (activity record and device id) to update or remove the app that is not necessarily available in the app, itself. What you describe implies greater intrusiveness than Google has ... the ability to get into every app's code and modify whatever they want.
If you received word that Google had the ability to reach into and reprogram any Android app, as you suggest they should, would that make you feel better?
Yeah ... all of those smartphones running Flash must be imaginary, I guess. You should really look at brands other than those provided by Apple, once in a while. Many of them run web browsers that have no problem at all including a Flash plugin.
Ideas not fully-formed
"Depends what codec they throw in with the rendering engine. HTML5 doesn't specify Ogg or H.264."
Hulu will continue to use H.264 for their encoding, regardless of whether HTML5 or Flash takes precedence because of the costs associated with switching to another codec. Besides, they don't have any control over the rendering engine ... that's up to the the web browser. If the client's browser supports H.264, then that is what it will use, both in Hulu's and YouTube's cases. Unfortunately, MSIE does not support Ogg, so for quite some time we will not be seeing any major rollout of exclusively Ogg-encoded streams.
Much of Hulu's argument falls flat. The real reasons are cost ... to convert from H.264 to something else ... and reach ... until MSIE supports HTML5 consistently, there's no reason for any major company to change their approach.
Unclear on the concept
For those of you who are new to this planet, there is a HUGE difference between selling that old vinyl record album to one individual who could then sell it to one other individual and providing a nice, clean digital copy for download by thousands of individuals who could then provide their digital copy to thousands of other individuals.
In the first instance, there is a physical unit that was the basis for the distribution of the material and its accounting. In the second instance you have a perfect digital reproduction made from the original material that has in no way been accounted for. There is no physical unit to base the accounting on, and the digital copies are additional product that have been illegally included in the distribution stream.
A vinyl record album cannot be copied perfectly ... it's physically impossible to do so, and there will ALWAYS be loss of fidelity. This means that the ONLY "clean" version of a vinyl record is the original copy. A digital copy can ALWAYS be recorded perfectly with no loss of audio fidelity, which means that every copy is just as perfect as the original.
A vinyl record album gets damaged each time it is played, resulting in deteriorating audio quality as time goes on. This means that the original disc becomes less and less useful as a copy source as time goes on. A digital copy never deteriorates, and remains perfect for generating new perfect copies for its entire lifespan. (Yeah yeah ... I have some awesome stereo equipment, too, and the damage done from playing a record on my system is not so much, but every record is ALWAYS damaged a bit from the simple act of dragging the metal stylus through the softer vinyl groove.)
Digital downloads provide an exact copy of the material, which keeps that much money out of the pockets of those who created the material because there is zero incentive to purchase another exact digital copy.
Vinyl record re-sales do nothing to harm the revenue stream, because the sale of that physical property already happened, and any buyer who wanted a "pristine" version would need to purchase a fresh vinyl edition to obtain it, resulting in more revenue for the creators.
Comparing vinyl to digital is a fools errand, and an argument that is supported by claiming the two are in any way similar is an argument made by a fool.
Yahoo is the new Google-wanna-be, didn't you get the memo? For that matter, Apple is the new IBM-wanna-be, so you can thank their little secret tech for passing on such interesting info to Yahoo for correlation. Don't you wonder why the iPad wifi (3G wasn't available in time to be included in these stats) and the iPhone can be tracked down to a single user like that? Those devices don't even use the same protocols! How do you figure that's done?
Are there El Reg articles that describe MacOSX/iPad/iPhone in an even remotely similar fashion? Are Mac reviewers capable of writing such an article? I'm looking for a decent review of the technical underpinnings, not the "features". While this article doesn't go very deep, it does touch on what I think are some of the most important aspects of the OS, missing from every MacOS article I have ever read.
"HTML5 compliant" does not apply to video renderers. HTML5 is a markup language. How any application wants to support that language is up to them, including that application's choice of video rendering software.
Saying that H.264 is "safer, faster and less buggy" implies that you have some benchmark results that prove your claim. Don't you? Please link to them. Otherwise, your claim means only that you enjoy making claims without proof.
Worse, you assume that the performance characteristics of this format are isolated from their operating environment, which is simply, demonstrably false. If the operating environment is friendly (provides a mature means of integration) with Brand A and not friendly with Brand B, then claiming that Brand A is a "safer, faster and less buggy" than Brand B while running on that platform just points out the weakness of the claim.
As with the MSIE/Netscape battle of old, when the OS is optimized for use with one and no effort has been made to support the other, then obviously one will have better performance characteristics than the other on that platform. It says nothing at all about a comparison between the two, because the deck is stacked. It's like making a door 24" wide, then saying that the thin guy was smarter than the fat guy because the thin guy could get into the room for the interview and the fat guy couldn't. The width of the door has nothing to do with the smartness of the person trying to get through it ...
If Microsoft and Apple refuse to support Ogg, then Ogg will always perform worse under Microsoft and Apple operating systems. H.264 will *always* be the chosen format, and *all* arguments from those companies will push toward its adoption because of their vested interests, not because Ogg is better or worse than H.264, but because supporting Ogg does nothing for either company's bottom line. It's just that simple.
"If you don't want to pay the toll, build your own damned bridge (without copying from anyone else, mind!) Or use another, cheaper, rival, bridge and play the two against each other."
Your ignorance of all things patent is screaming. Simply, the patents in question PROHIBIT you from building "your own damned bridge", because they claim complete control over the *idea* of a "bridge". You can't build it because they claim to own the *concept*.
"If you just don't like software patents, guess what? There's a way to get rid of them: It's called an "election"—you may have heard of the concept. Educate your friends, colleagues, relatives. Tell them to educate *their* friends, colleagues, etc., and use your votes to change society to better fit your preferences. (Of course, if you fail to achieve it, it's probably fair to say that the rest of society doesn't agree with you and you'll just have to suck it up.)"
Again with the ignorance. You don't "elect" patents or those who work in the USPTO. And your participation in any election will have zero impact on the USPTO in any event, because it is not a political organization.
In order to change the way the USPTO does business requires millions and millions of dollars in bribes ... um ... "lobbying activities" to convince various political entities that the way you want to do business is better for the country than the way business is being done. Forming a community action group as you suggest will just waste your time and the time of those attending your little meetings, and will accomplish exactly nothing toward modifying patent regulations.
I know it's fun for you to whine about the whiners, but it helps if you demonstrate some intelligence in your whining. Otherwise, you're perceived as being equally stupid to the whiners, and that's not a strong position to be in.
Yeah, but ...
As so few have noted ... these are ROUTER MAC addresses, not client machines, so the odds of seeing one of the MAC addresses in any public hotspot are zero. The MAC addresses being recorded are ONLY valuable when combined with GPS data to locate that particular router ... it in no way compromises any sort of "privacy" of any individual. Besides, any individual whose router has been so cataloged has already demonstrated that they don't care about sharing the identity of their network ... otherwise they would have locked down the router and disabled broadcasting its SSID in the first place.
If someone is wandering around nude, they lose the right to complain when others look at their jumblies.
"Getting advice directly from McAfee is a far better option."
Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is a definition of "insanity". Why bother asking the company that fsked you up for advice on how to unfsk you?
The best option ("far better" even than your suggestion) is to abandon the offender entirely in favor of better options, of which there are many. I can't believe that McAfee and Symantec are still in business. The number of security issues those companies have caused by screwing up their programming are on par with Microsoft, itself. There's a lesson, here, for those willing to observe.
"In that case, all the companies would need to do is to run CS in Windows on existing Mac hardware (for the last few years, all Macs can run Windows) in return for a whopping discount."
Discount? You still have to purchase a Windows license, take the time to install it into BootCamp and then buy the Windows version of the software and install that, too. In terms of both time and money, it's more expensive to run dual boot when two proprietary operating systems are involved. Maybe you are referring to the 50% price difference in the software (as proposed by the OP), but even a 50% "discount" on CS won't make up for the rest of the expense.
Is it bliss?
@bothwell ... that's a serious question. Is it bliss? Your ignorance, I mean. For your sake, I hope it is. Because you look like an idiot when you try to get around it. Your ignorance, that is. Better bone up on your history if you ever hope to appear intelligent when you talk about the MSIE/Netscape lawsuit ... which Netscape won, by the way. Toodles.
Nice, but ...
@Ritchie: Your comment re: Edwards completely misses his point, although it is always nice to read a basic explanation of release iteration policies.
Edwards is asking:
Windows Free Updates are referred to as "Security Patches" regardless of whether "security" issues are being addressed.
Apple Free Updates are referred to as "Free Updates" regardless of whether "security" issues are being addressed.
Edwards wonders: Why don't we call Microsoft patch releases "Free Updates", too?
The answer is that Microsoft calls their patches "Security Patches" because Windows users are concerned about security, seeing as it is a critical issue with Windows systems that has been traditionally damaging to the user simply by them purchasing and using the products. Calling the patches "Security Patches" provides some comfort for the Windows user, as they imagine such an update could make their system more secure once installed.
Apple calls their patches "Free Updates" because Apple users are concerned about money, seeing as it is a critical issue with Apple systems that has been traditionally damaging to the user simply by them purchasing and using the products. Calling the patches "Free Updates" provides some comfort for the Apple user, as they imagine such an update could really be without cost to them ... as in "free beer" ... which is a CRAZY idea in the Apple world, and so is extremely compelling to the Apple user, who can't wait to take advantage of what must surely be an aberrant moment in time when Apple lost its ever-lovin' marbles and gave something away for free.
Not a fan, but ...
I'm not a Flash fan, but I feel compelled to point out that Flash, itself, is not a bad technology, any more than C# is a bad technology. Both can be used to create crappy, system-crashing work when in the wrong hands. Similarly, both could be used to create awesome, deliciously-high-performance work when in the right hands.
So unless Flash has been crashing your browser even when all the file contains is a blank canvas, which would point to Flash itself as the culprit, please try to remember that it is the DEVELOPER who programs the crap ... it's not the tool they use to do it with.
Patent Trolling Patent: http://ow.ly/1ghNr
Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Winky.
What planet are you from?
One can legally buy a Wii/DS/XBox/PS/PSP game/accessories/whatever at Sears, Target, Fry's, Staples, any major store, online at various places, from friends, from many grocery stores, etc.etc.etc.
The ONLY place one can legally get iProduct apps from is ... the Apple App Store.
NOW can you see the difference? Comprehension is a learned skill, Numbnuts.
Numbnuts ... the OP to which you replied stated:
"They tell you *if* you can sell it afterward, something even games boxes, printers and camera suppliers cannot control."
See that first part ... go ahead, read it even more slowly this time ... it says "They tell you *if* you can sell it afterward". Go back and read it one more time, and don't skip any words ... I'm pretty sure you weren't able to understand it the first time, based on your comment.
Get it now? The OP wasn't referring to developer agreements in general, but rather to a specific scenario only applicable to iProduct developers ... wherein (a) when Apple does not approve of the application (b) it cannot be "legally" distributed anywhere, although that will be for the courts to decide.
So tell us, oh profligate wise-ass Numbnuts, which "games boxes, printers and camera suppliers" were you referring to in the context of the original comment, and not in the context of your imaginary intelligence?
The Info You Seek
Is on page 2 of the article.
"..nothing is forcing you to use Apple's (or anyone else's) products if you don't want to."
Let's please stop using this statement in any comment that goes on to reference Microsoft and their monopoly, shall we? You are always free to use any product you can get, and that has always included Microsoft's products ... in that you have never *had* to buy Microsoft products, there have *always* been alternatives.
So let's all acknowledge that (1) nobody is "forcing" anyone to do anything in any event, (2) Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and (3) Apple is heading down the same road, but will never get there because Jobs doesn't want a company that big ... he prefers marketing to a cult: It's easier, and in all of recorded history there has never been a successful uprising perpetrated by cult members against their God.
Never a simple advert
The "1984" trailer wasn't an ad ... it was a mission statement.
The funny part is that people thought it signified the desire to "Break Free From Big Brother", when in fact it represented Apple's ambition to "Become Big Brother".
"Apple is only playing by the rules of the system"
No, Apple are not playing by the rules of the "system" ... they are ABUSING the "system".
Their entire company and its products are built from ideas conceived by others and then "protected" by Apple's rushing to abuse the "system" that they are now gaming for their own benefit and to the rest of the world's detriment. They are now betting, probably successfully, that they will STILL be allowed to use their stolen tech, because it is too much trouble to play by the rules of the "system" for any company that actually believes in it.
Apple abuses the "system" by ignoring their own responsibilities to those who have generously allowed them to continue to use their stolen tech, and by their pursuit of these lawsuits despite the obviousness of their untenability. Many posters here have noted some of the prior art that renders these same patents meaningless, yet Apple pushes ahead with their bid to destroy HTC.
That is "abuse", and the "system" was not intended to function that way.
So close .....
"...years ago Apple was royally shafted by Microsoft over the Mac."
Um ... you must be referring to the GUI debacle, where Apple said, "We invented it" and Microsoft said, "We invented it" and the judge said, "Losers. IBM PARX Xerox invented it ... and both of you know it because both of you attended the demonstration before you started working on your own version, so get the hell out of my courtroom."
You also ignore that Microsoft provided most of the productivity software for the Mac, including rolling out a Mac version of MS Office very early on so that the Mac users could have something to type with besides a simple text editor. Not to mention the additional programming assistance Microsoft gave to Apple, including loaner coders and engineers, so it could become a viable computer company.
Oh yeah ... Microsoft shafted Apple, alright. And the rest of your comment will be taken seriously.
Re: Most important question
How long before Apple decides to sue for infringing on its patents?
Where's the metaphor?
Google is the "Chocolate Factory" peopled by "oompah-loompahs".
Apple makes the "Jesus Phone".
Microsoft? I guess they're just a regular company without the need for a derogatory nickname. Must simply be a bunch of really nice folks doing spectacular work for the good of Mankind.
Metz, your biases are showing.
Too much effort
Reformatting is too much work, and won't get you past the Acceptable Use Policy you signed when you received your school-owned kit. It's particularly noticeable when you return the kit to the school at the end of the year.
No, the simplest answer is: Live CD ... pick a flavor (Windoze, 'Nix, whatever) ... no logs, no traces ... no violation of the agreement ... and no nasty little bugs running in the background.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015