SeaFox said:
Hate to break it to you, but apple's done this more than once. Remember how itunes 4.6 broke mytunes? Several other bits of RIAA style stuff have come in update form, particularly security.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Longhorn FAQs...And I am not impresssed
- Thread starter Mechcozmo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hate to break it to you, but apple's done this more than once. Remember how itunes 4.6 broke mytunes? Several other bits of RIAA style stuff have come in update form, particularly security.
Different levels of license for computers is not such a bad idea. They have different levels for HAM radios, pilot's licenses, driver's licenses, among other things. Why not implement it with computers to protect the idiots from themselves? Maybe this is too much like Big Brother or the interpretation of the NS5's in "I, Robot" but maybe it would work. Of course having licenses for people to use the Internet would slow the growth of e-commerce drastically. It would weed out too many customers. I think one of the reasons that Microsoft has the market share that it does, and ensnares new users the way it does is the power of suggestion. The media and the sales person suggest that this is the computer the user needs for X reason(s). Said user comes to believe that what they have been told is true, there is not other options. In essence, it is a form of brain-washing.
SeaFox said:
The difference is Apple adoption is going up, Windows adoption has hit a plateau, and is slowly subsiding.
Also, Apple makes no money from its old OS (which, I believe you're wrong about, and it is in the minority).
It's all well and good that MS is running on most computers, but if people don't buy their new products, it doesn't make any difference as far as MS is concerned. MS has stopped supporting 9x, and yet it still accounts for a fair part of the market.
As the computing market expands, that's how alternative OS's will take over. The thing is, it's supersaturated right now, and is expanding fairly slowly.
2005 is probably the next PC buying cycle.
grapes911 said:
But how many people actually bought a copy of XP? I didn't. It came pre-installed in my Dull, and there was no option for any other version of Windows. This is how they get their market shares, through dealers and manufacturers, not individual customers.
Anyway, I believe this thread to be overblown. America has it's own unique law making procedure (lobbying), which doesn't exist in other countries. Those countries are more serious about monopoly abuses than the Bush government and slap fines on MS that stick.
And really, if you care about this stuff, then don't go hyperventilating on a forum somewhere, go and gently teach your friends, family, co-workers, students, etc. about proper computer use. Heck, my girlfriend said that she couldn't use Macs, and so I let her use my Windows box, but I had a question every 10 minutes from her. So I bought her an iBook, and spent the first week answering her questions. Now I've no idea what she does with it, because I'm never asked over for help.
Teach your peers to send text email, not html mail. Teach them to use Firefox, not IE. Teach them to never open attachments, even when they're from friends, unless they're on a Mac. At the end of the day, my non-science friends are switching to Macs, and the techy guys know what they're doing on Windows.
Anyway, peace guys and gals, no offence meant to anyone, and sleep well tonight!
umm I might like to point out I know plenty of people who bought there copy of XP. My parents bought there copy. I bought my copy for my computer (but then again I built my computer from the ground up so it is an OEM copy. My laptop has a retrail copy upgrade I paid for.
People buy there OS. Windows is not full of piraters like everyone says.
I also might like to point out pirating on the Mac is a cake walk and the antipirating apple uses is pathiced at best (this is for almost all software on Apples. It a piece of cake to pirated software for a mac)
People buy there OS. Windows is not full of piraters like everyone says.
I also might like to point out pirating on the Mac is a cake walk and the antipirating apple uses is pathiced at best (this is for almost all software on Apples. It a piece of cake to pirated software for a mac)
dontmatter said:
That's different. MyTunes was not endorsed or condoned by Apple. The WMP update was protrayed as an innocent patch to the player and there was no mention of it removing functionality from the software. MyTunes functionality was not designed into iTunes to start with, it was a hack.
Yes, I'm well aware of the ability to strem music over the internet in iTunes 4.0.0, but it was designed to only be used within a home. So now Apple isn't changing DRM rules if it takes away the loophole that allowed the internet streaming, because it wasn't supposed to allow it to begin with.
Now if you wany to bring up the latest update taking you from 10 playlist burns to 7, well then you also got to use those purchased songs on 5 computers instead of three, so it was a trade off.
OMG I know I've seen an OS with these kind of features.... omg what was it called.... oh yeah Mac OS, Mac has the innovations and as you can see, Microsoft steals from Apple. I hope Microsoft gets hit by an airplane.
Now anyone who answers this correctly will get a clapping hand, where have you seen a screen remotely look like this, you get one hint: its a type of fruit:
Mechcozmo said:
Microsoft was working on a new filesystem, called WinFX or WinFS, if I remember correctly. It's one of the Longhorn features that has been slashed away in order to meet the 2006 release date. I'm assuming this will mean NTFS will continue to be used.
Jyril said:
I think I read, and it may even be in these faqs, that ntfs will be used and a patch will be issued shortly after so the user can then use winfs.
I think most people's fear here is that an entity is going to obtain too much control. Neither Microsoft, Apple, the government, or the RIAA/MPAA should have control over what people do with their computers (to the extent which is being discussed in this thread).
To those that think that Microsoft does not have as much power as they do, you are being too idealistic. Microsoft has an enormous influence on the general public because technology has progressed so fast that the majority of users have not been able to keep up. They buy a computer to do what they need to do. Microsoft could do whatever they want, and even with the media trying to explain what Microsoft is doing, they would just buy another pc with the next generation of Windows because that is what came with it. This should frighten all of us.
To those that think that Microsoft does not have as much power as they do, you are being too idealistic. Microsoft has an enormous influence on the general public because technology has progressed so fast that the majority of users have not been able to keep up. They buy a computer to do what they need to do. Microsoft could do whatever they want, and even with the media trying to explain what Microsoft is doing, they would just buy another pc with the next generation of Windows because that is what came with it. This should frighten all of us.
kilpajr said:
What's frightening is what happens when corporations are allowed to become so large and then abuse their positions. Microsoft is becoming like the tobacco industry. They are so large and have so much power and influence on aspects of our lives the government is scared to do anything drastic with them. Despite the detrimental effects to public health (in the big tobacco instance) or innovation and technology (in Microsoft's case) nobody wants to say "YOU HAVE TO STOP NOW." Because the effect of such a large business entity suddenly disappearing or being broken up (a la AT&T) would have a horrible impact on the economy in general. And nobody wants to be blamed when stupid managers in other companies start knee-jerk layoffs in response to a really bad day on the Dow.
I heard once that the reason Big Tobacco isn't taken down by the government is that the federal budget has become too dependant on the huge tax revenues from cigarette companies. I'm not sure if I believe that, but it sure sounds like it has some ring of truth in it.
Colonel Panik said:
I agree with you, if you can't get them to switch, get them on Firefox and away from Outlook Express, get them to avoid attachments and suspicious emails. And lastly, for all those IT guys out there, your job is to support the staff's systems, the tools that they need. Their job is NOT to make yours easier by using a single monolithic block you happened to take a course in. Learn new things.
SeaFox said:
I actually think that AT&T is a great example of how breaking up a monopoly is actually helpful in this economy. When Ma' Bell was broken, it created a more than a dozen small companies that have become the various ISPs, cell-phone companies, cable companies, and phone companies which have employed thousands more and created whole new markets.
I think breaking MS into the Operating System and the Applications would have been great for the market, it would eventually create two powerful companies, and because of the separation the OS could abandon IE for new technologies, or IE could be upgraded along a faster track away from Longhorn. WMP, Office, even Slate and MSN could be viable companies without being tied to OS.
Palm and PalmOne, maybe?
hulugu said:
I agree, but AT&T was twenty years ago. The economy is differnet. Also, note that in the last few years the baby bells have been recongealing into larger companies again.
It would be good eventually. But Wall Street and the tech sector wouldn't see it that way. They'd just see a humongous company being broken apart and think "Oh, now the Windows OS and Office wont integrate as much as they used to. The suite will suffer." "Now this section of the company formerly known as Microsoft will not be able to play off the strengths of this one." "The consumer products devision will spin off and die like Lucent." We're all going to be DOOOMED! {doomed!}
This isn't a telecom spinning off divisions in the glitzy 80's. It's a major computer software/entertainmant/.com business (that makes up 90% of practically all of computing) breaking apart in a post-post tech-sector-burst recession.
Fukui said:
That's what I meant by "collapse."
Good examples though.
New technology, better marketing, better timing--all these things happen, it just takes a trained eye to pinpoint when.
MS has only been #1 for 10-15 years now. Eventually, as the public becomes more and more computer literate, they'll see the advantages in.. well all alternatives to windows.
Jyril said:
WinFS isn't a filesystem, just a database full of metadata. When implemented, the filesystem will still be NTFS.
Now I'm not sure if its always been like this... the FS in WinFS supposedly stands for Future Storage. Personally I think it use to be a filesystem that Microsoft scrapped and replaced with the "Future Storage" moniker as to not confuse anyone.
That is, of course, my guess and not fact.
Mechcozmo said:
http://www.graphixmad.plus.com/mac_troubleshooter/hfs.html
Edit.
Oh, and by the way. NTFS supports way more than 2TB. Windows just limits you to 2TBS. NTFS actally supports much, much more. I think that this is also true for HFS+. We can't even comprehend the actual limit on either of these file systems.