[pfletcher]

quotinh rhrh1997 Well almost everyone has a windows but the same almost everyone dreams of having a apple mac as there computer but people dont get to it windows mabey sells more but apple is more expensive and makes millions more than windows each year lots of ppl cant afford apple or dont know all the features apple has

I hope you are a foreigner with limited grasp of the English language, becaue if you are not your daddy will be very upset that you are playing with his computer...:^0

[pfletcher]

there were plenty of online music systems around before iTunes - credit where it is due - Apple is one hell of a marketing company

[smax013]

rberzins said:

That's exactly what has driven me up the wall to point that i mentioned above. I'd rather not have it than deal with iTunes, it's just not worth the irritation to me.

I would like to think (whether or not it's actually true) is that i can admit that Apple has done some things extremely well - the iPhone, yes there's really nothing to match it as far as i have seen. I try and keep an open mind on it, or at least be aware that i have my silly prejudices.

Believe me, I understand. I dislike the DRM in iTunes...if only in principle...I don't like being treated like a criminal. As a result, I rarely buy albums from iTunes...but I will buy some individual songs, now and then. In the end, I blame the music industry more than Apple. It is by the music industries demands that DRM was used on iTunes and still is used on iTunes. If the music industry would allow Apple DRM free music like Amazon, then you could buy the songs on iTunes and use them on ANY device.





I have become less concerned with now that I have an AppleTV for playing music through the stereo (as well as playing movies and TV shows). Previously I had a SqueezeBox, which could not play the protected AAC content from iTunes...I had to go through the doable hassle of converting it to MP3.






I dislike DRM. I pay for my music...never once used P to P to get free music...so why should I be treated like a criminal and NOT be able to play the music that I legally paid for on WHATEVER device I want.






Now, having said that, I don't have a problem with Apple limiting their DRM to their hardware...when I look at it from a business perspective. If I look at it purely from a consumer perspective, then I have some issues, but then many of those issues don't matter to me as I prefer an iPod to any other MP3 player anyways (thus, I am slightly biased). :) After all, if the music industry is going to actively work to sink iTunes, then why should Apple help them? If the music industry is SO worried about Apple's dominance in the iPod market, then let Apple sell unprotected music that will run on ANY MP3 player. But, they realize that will not likely put too much of a damper on Apple's iPod sales and would likely keep iTunes in a more dominate position (although Amazon will dent that no matter what). The reality is the the music industry is acting a little spiteful towards Apple. It is not really like they can change the pricing structure very easily even if they do diminish iTunes. After all, Amazon is basically charging the same as Apple...it has become a rather standard pricing model that consumers expect.

[smax013]

pfletcher said:

there were plenty of online music systems around before iTunes - credit where it is due - Apple is one hell of a marketing company

Yes, but Apple was one of the first to do the a la carte purchase...most others were subscription based. And they also had the foresight to pair it with a highly desireable MP3 player. All the others had DRM stuff that did not work that well with a successfully player. And it certainly helped that they are good at marketing.

[smax013]

pfletcher said:

I hope you are a foreigner with limited grasp of the English language, becaue if you are not your daddy will be very upset that you are playing with his computer...:^0

Please be careful. That is getting close to being a personal attack. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and any personal attack posts will be edited or removed. If you have any questions, please feel free to review the [d-1000].

[smax013]

pfletcher said:

As someone who was around at the time I still find it amusing that the Apple crew blindly repeat until they are reminded that in reality the ideas were lifted. The only real difference was that MS hired the people to come work for them...

The whole thing is hilarious to me

Let me be clear...when I said I was not there, I meant I was not THERE...as in at Xerox or Apple so I don't know what really happened. I was "around" at the time. I have been using Apple computers since the days of before and around the Apple IIe. Anyone not THERE is largely in the same boat...relying on second hand information which can be twisted any number of ways. Thus, I will admit that I may not know the full story.

[rberzins]

smax, I guess i got a little spoilt because i don't collect mainstream music. I'm a dance/electronic music person with interests in DJing - so I got used to software like Beatport Sync and Traktor that allow me to search for a tune while i'm in the middle of mixing, buy it and download it in the space of about 2mins, all from within the DJ software. Without any DRM issues at all. I feel like that should be the standard, not the exception. Certainly I would agree it's mainly the record labels that have made it so difficult - that's why the music i generally buy doesn't have as many problems because it's not being sold by big labels. Good chatting to you about this though.

[dlcollison]

I was forced to purchase a new computer for my wife when her old laptop went up in smoke! I opted to purchase a high end laptop loaded with Vista - some of the tools my wife uses are only available in the Windows world.

Let the frustrations begin - Vista constantly looses the multifunction wireless printer that we have installed in our network. This printer is new with Vista drivers available - yet Vista continuously thinks the printer has vanished from the face of the Earth. I then must reinstall the printer drivers and everything will work fine for two weeks until it happens all over. I would blame the printer manufacturer - but a close friend has the same thing happening with a printer from a different manufacturer.

I run Linux and XP and will do anything in my power not to purchase another Vista loaded computer. When I need to buy a computer for my boys, it will be loaded with either Linux or OSX (or whatever variation Apple has out by then).

Cya - MS

[rgreen4]

I have a laptop running Vista and three printers hooked to the network, including one wireless and have had no problems at all. One thing you do need to be careful of is that the printer is on before you boot the laptop. If you are in the habit of turning off the printer, you need to turn it on if you think you are going to use it. This is not new to Vista, but has been a point in Microsoft OS's for decades.

I will ask you to do the same thing I ask of others in these types of discussions. If you are having a problem with any aspect of your computers, please post them as a question on the community, in this case under the Windows heading or under the Printers heading. There are many knowledgable members who will see them there and they almost never prowl the news discussion threads.

[eMJay]

Let me first say that i'm not anyone's zealot by any means. I will use X, Y and Z and Z's arch-enemy's OS if i like it and have use for it. I've used all versions of windows and several flavors of Linux ( I'm typing this on Ubuntu) and I've used my friends' Macs for years. But i have a principle - I don't do anything that can hurt my freedom to choose. I view Mac hardware as being similar in concept and purpose to player-restricted DRM in multimedia. I guess the scenario in this case will be that i want the Mp3 from iTunes but don't want the iPod - but the mp3 has DRM that locks me into the Appleware. To be honest, i don't have a problem with DRM as long as it stays invisible and all the other players are using the same DRM. I have no intention of buying music online if the DRM it uses isn't going to be ubiquitous. What happens when my iPod breaks? Buy another one? And I'm stuck with iTunes to manage my files? What happens when i decide to switch completely to Linux and leave Windows behind? There's no iTunes for Linux. Suppose i'm tired of the iPod by that time and want to use something far better but my music collection worth thousands won't play on anything besides Appleware.
I'm not saying that buying any Mac is unconditionally stupid. Apple produces some great laptops..but my issue is not with laptops but with iMacs. If, in your estimation, the hardware price for their laptops is not overinflated then by all means shop away; it's your money. But if you KNOW that the price is inflated as i do and you STILL go ahead and buy it for no other reason than to get your hands on the OS, then you can't argue that you're not doing something stupid.

The 'higher end' of the consumer computer market actually belongs to the PC gamers' gear so i don't know where you got the idea that Macs were anywhere near high-end. If you were only talking about laptops i'd agree with you...the Mac line of Laptops are among the best. But laptops aren't the most powerful PCs out there by any standards. Macs desktops (iMacs not MacPro) are on the higher end of average PCs where specs and performance are concerned. The best computers in the world are built not bought. In the PC world, true high end is not static - if someone produces great PC hardware today, by next month someone else has improved on it and drives the price down. Consider the fact that the much faster DDR3 isn't yet available on the Mac but i can use it if i choose to - in the Mac world DDR3 doesn't exist yet. Sure you can argue that you don't need it now, but to get it you will have to get a new Mac whenever they decide to use it, while i may just need to change my motherboard and keep practically everything else if i choose to. If you break your iMac screen you have to rely on a dealer to replace it and you can't get a bigger screen without buying another Mac. If i break my monitor screen i can just buy a bigger one an hour later for less than you would have to pay for repairs, and even repair and sell the older one if i choose to. Hardware options aren't just about what you can put in the PC. If you're okay with less hardware options then that's fine - especially if your preference is for laptops. But the iMac is a poor substitute for a Desktop PC any way you look at it and would actually do harm to the PC industry if it were widely adopted. That's my main problem with Apple's business model. Companies in competition with those supported by Apple suffer when Mac market share rises markedly. They'll never reach 80% OS market share as you stated, but small startups won't benefit from an increasingly closed market. And if Apple were to allow cloning of the Mac or free their software from the hardware restrictions, they'd probably go out of business as a desktop manufacturer. Apple isn't good at competing on a level playing field.

[smax013]

pfletcher said:

interesting that some people read the wikipedia article and get that Apple bought the ideas from Xerox - even that somewhat Apple-twisted version of events only says Apple shares were promised in exchange for 'seeing' the work. Apple STOLE the concepts they saw and incorporated them in their own work. MS STOLE (by hiring away) the brains that worked at Xerox and using them to build their version of a WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer) system.

I will also note that there IS still a potential BIG difference between what Apple did and what Microsoft did.



First, let's get a little more specific with what Apple did. As you noted, the Wikipedia article states that the original Mac OS was partially "bassed on the Lisa OS, previously released by Apple for the Lisa computer in 1983 and, as part of an agreement allowing Xerox to buy shares in Apple at a favourable rate, it also used concepts from the Xerox PARC Xerox Alto which Steve Jobs and several other Macintosh team members had previewed." Now, that "deal" implies that Apple "saw" Xerox work in exchange for Apple shares promise "in exchange for 'seeing' the work". I will note that you specifcally put "seeing" in quotes, which suggest that even you don't necessarily know what "seeing" really meant in terms of an agreement between Apple and Xerox. There is several basic ways that could have really played out. The first is that Apple offered up the ability to Xerox to purchase Apple shares at a favorable rate (which it NOT promising shares, as you put it) in exchange for explicit permission on Xerox's part to review the work that Xerox was doing and use it. Another possibility was that Xerox explicitly agree to let Apple review the Xerox work, but never gave explicit permission to use it but also did not give an explicit refusal to use it. The last possibility is that Xerox did explicitly agree to let them review the work, but also explicited denied them the use of that work.



Now, the last possibility seems unlikely. If that possibility was true, then I would think that Xerox would have sued Apple taking their intellectual properties when they had explicitedly agreed to only "see" it. I don't recall any such lawsuit OR any such claim. While I won't go so far as to claim that possibility is not possible, it certainly seem extremely unlikely. So that in essences leave the first two possibilities.



I would argue that more than likely in legal terms (I am no lawyer...I only pay one on TV when I am channeling my inner lawyer after staying in a Holiday Inn Express...;) ...as the saying might go) there is little difference between the two. While the second option does not give explicit permission for use, it would likely be found that any company who agrees to some form of payment into order to review some of their intellectual properties is giving implicit permission to use that intellectural properties unless the agreement specifically, explicited denied that right of use.



With that in mind, in either case of the two rather likely possibilities and the likelihood of the last possibility being very, very small if even realistically possible at all, the basic end result is that Apple PAID for the right to use that technology. Now, one might legitimately argue that they maybe got a GREAT deal...and thus might argue they "stole" it because of the good deal...just like someone might claim they got a "steal of a deal" on something bought and felt they really were able to dramatically under pay. I would argue back that if Xerox bought any decent number of share of Apple at that point, then they likely made a LOT of money off those shares. Early Apple shares split and grew enough that the people that go into Apple early made LOTS of money, included quite a few millionaires...much like people who got in early at Microsoft.



As to Microsoft "hiring away the brains that worked at Xerox and using them to build their version of a WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer) system," I will note that at EVERY company that I have worked at, I have signed a form stating that any intellectual property that I develop while working at that company is the property of the company. To my knowledge that type of agreement is binding (but don't know if it has been tested in court...I assume it has...nor to I know the full extend of its coverage...i.e. if I develop an idea completely on my own at home using my own resources while I happen to work at a company, does that count as well). Now, I don't know if any of those employees that you claim Microsoft hired away had signed such an agreement or even if they did not sign such an agreement if such an agreement is merely a formality and those rights still exist for the employer. And I don't know if Microsoft used intellectual property that those people have developed while working at Xerox after Microsoft has hired them or if it was stuff they developed outside of Xerox. But, the point is that IF Microsoft DID use intellectual property that those people had developed at Xerox after hiring them for that purpose and those people where subject to provisions that their work will working for Xerox was the property of Xerox, then Microsoft stole it. And if so, then Xerox may not have cared as they were not really using that intellectual property having sold the right to use it to Apple. Now, I will admit that I really don't know if that is the way it played out or if it was less nefarious than that. But, I will note that Apple did sue Microsoft over items they felt Microsoft had "stolen" from them, and while many of those claims were dropped, 10 of those claims were NOT...but Apple later agreed to dismiss that case in exchange for Microsoft's "support" back in the 90s or so in terms of a cash investment in Apple and an agreement to develop and support stuff for the Mac platform and a cross license of some of their respective technologies (i.e. they "settled" the case in effect)...if I recall correctly. Thus, there are some apparently legitimate legal claims that were still viable and were never litigated in court...and we will never know if they would have gone anywere or not.



The point is that after all that is that there IS a legitimate claim that Microsoft stole ideas that Apple had legal rights to. Now, the reality is that we will likely never know if that legitimate claim is truth or not. It will always just be a claim.



Now, I will agree that both Apple and Microsoft have used other ideas that were not their own. Sometimes they have explicitly bought the use of thoes ideas, either before they used them or after the fact when some made a claim and they did a after the fact licensing agreement. It is certainly possible that both have used things that they have NOT paid for the right to use, but either that entity never made a beef about it, hasn't yet made beef about, or won't make a beef about it...for either of them. If there is a beef about something else, then most likely either Microsoft or Apple will fight it unless they feel it is easier or cheaper to just settle it. And if the settle it or lose the fight, then like most companies, they will likely sign some licensing agreement so that they can continue to use that idea.

[brucel]

I like how Ubuntu found my printer, but it wouldn't print anything at all. I like how I bought a Mac with OS X for my niece and how anything but an Apple webcam will work on it. I like how Windows Vista Media Center won't let me play stuff I recorded off of HBO to be viewable on my networked computers.
Computers are fun.

[smax013]

brucel said:

I like how Ubuntu found my printer, but it wouldn't print anything at all. I like how I bought a Mac with OS X for my niece and how anything but an Apple webcam will work on it. I like how Windows Vista Media Center won't let me play stuff I recorded off of HBO to be viewable on my networked computers.

Computers are fun.

FWIW, there are some non-Apple webcams that will work with a Mac...but you are correct that they are limited, unfortunately. And it is even worse since Apple dropped the stand alone iSight camera from their line up. Now, it is only really an issue if you have a Mac Mini or Mac Pro...those are the only current Macs that DO NOT have a built in iSight webcam.

[drpilot]

I work with XP Pro sp2, and OSX 10.3.9. I have to say I strongly prefer XP for internet, and overall the PC is much quicker than the G5. The pc works better for word processing and email. Hardware runs better on the pc. Printers are more compatible with the pc. I perfer the G5 for Adobe publishing software, and OSx is much easier for managing folders and files. Why is Windows so reluctant to improve file management? Why is Apple so reluctant to put in optical drives that actually work?

[rgreen4]

drpilot - Welcome to the PC World Community. You comment intrigues me. What is it that you don't like about windows file management and do about that of OSX?
I am sincere in my question, never having used a Mac.

[BlackFoxfour]

LOL, Vista is a big joke. I bought a brand new Lap top from Dell with Vista on it. Right out of the box it CRASHED! I was so ticked. I ended up wiping the hard drive and installing Linux on the new laptop. Problems solved, it has not crashed since!

[piyushsingh]

BlackFoxfour said:

LOL, Vista is a big joke. I bought a brand new Lap top from Dell with Vista on it. Right out of the box it CRASHED! I was so ticked. I ended up wiping the hard drive and installing Linux on the new laptop. Problems solved, it has not crashed since!

And you consider it right to blame vista rather than dell ??

[drpilot]

Hello,

What I don't like about Windows filing system is the following:

You can't navigate through the system without using a mouse or touchpad, in Mac OS you can just use the keyboard.

You can't modify folders very much so as to make visually distinctive parent folders ( changing color of a folder for example, which you can do in Mac OS).

The folders are layered too much so as to become easily confusing when navigating. You have too many instances of " my documtents" and various user documents.

[piyushsingh]

drpilot said:

Hello,


What I don't like about Windows filing system is the following:


You can't navigate through the system without using a mouse or touchpad, in Mac OS you can just use the keyboard.


You can't modify folders very much so as to make visually distinctive parent folders ( changing color of a folder for example, which you can do in Mac OS).


The folders are layered too much so as to become easily confusing when navigating. You have too many instances of " my documtents" and various user documents.

FYI, In windows(talking vista)
* you can navigate through folders entirely by using the keyboard.
* you can customize each and every folder - color , background etc.
* I really dont understand what is confusing regading the directory structure.

[smax013]

drpilot said:

You can't navigate through the system without using a mouse or touchpad, in Mac OS you can just use the keyboard.

Don't know where you have been with Windows, but Windows has ALWAYS been easier to use overall without a mouse (or trackpad) than the Mac OS. You can easily move through the system using just the keyboard. You can select things from the desktop and open/run them. You can do just about anything with the keyboard in Windows. Much less so traditionally with the Mac.

drpilot said:

You can't modify folders very much so as to make visually distinctive parent folders ( changing color of a folder for example, which you can do in Mac OS).

While I am not aware of any way by default in Windows XP the color of a folder (I believe you can in Vista now), you can change the icon of the folder and you can put a custom picture on the folder. So, there are ways to make folders "visually distinctive".

drpilot said:

The folders are layered too much so as to become easily confusing when navigating. You have too many instances of " my documtents" and various user documents.

Sorry, but this is NO different than the Mac OS. The overall "layering" or "nesting" of folders is no different. I can just as easily bury a folder nine levels deep on a Mac as I can in Wndows. And with Mac OS and user accounts, you end up with "duplicate" folders on the hard drive as you have an Application, Movies, Music, etc folder for EACH user...again, no different the Mac OS (now, Classic Mac OS was different, but then Classic Mac OS did not have user accounts, much like Windows 3.1 did not).