Bosunsfate said:
Then why does Steve Jobs not push Intuit to make a sweet-ass program from OS X? I mean Quicken for OS X compared to it's Windows version just plain SUCKS! Period!
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.
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) at WWDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then why does Steve Jobs not push Intuit to make a sweet-ass program from OS X? I mean Quicken for OS X compared to it's Windows version just plain SUCKS! Period!
janstett said:
You mean a LENOVO with no optical bay. That wouldn't be pretty sweet, it would be pretty illegal.
You see, here's your second biggest fallacy - hardware means nothing if software doesn't work on it, and vice versa. Therefore, vertical alignment ensures the best compatibility. Your Gateway setup needs to be continually hacked - not my PB setup, because I paid for a real product.
That brings me to your first fallacy. You remind me of this punk that thought it was cool to just download OS X hacked and go ahead and use it on a PC. Well, not only is it not cool, it is totally illegal. You can't get away with that even if you also bought a copy in the store. Care to tell me you IP address? Want to be traced? You can bet your Gateway that Apple is working on smashing you thieves. Crying that you bought faster hardware won't justify theft for anybody but you, since your moral code is irrational. Have your fun while it lasts, and hey, maybe it'll last a long time for you!
You are so cool, you'll need to keep stealing new versions of OS X! I bet you don't have kids. It's one thing to shame your parents (if they taught you not to steal) or to be a messed up kid (if no parent or adult has ever taught you not to steal). It's another thing to be an embarassment to your own kids. It was never about whether you'll be caught on fined or thrown in jail - it's about having no understanding of what it means for A) producers to sell products or B) competence and work meaning you deserve something legally and can pay for it. Essentially, you weren't even smart enough to crack OS X yourself, so you stole it. Notice that one is legal and the latter is not.
I can't think of any reason why I'd want Resolution Independent UI.
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html
I'd always be choosing real-estate over scaling. So I'd always be using the OS the way we do today. I'm certainly not going to pick up a 24" Widescreen Dell or 23" Apple Cinema Screen and operate it as a more detailed 1024x768 display. Real estate is what I need.
Seems like a gimmick.
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html
I'd always be choosing real-estate over scaling. So I'd always be using the OS the way we do today. I'm certainly not going to pick up a 24" Widescreen Dell or 23" Apple Cinema Screen and operate it as a more detailed 1024x768 display. Real estate is what I need.
Seems like a gimmick.
Its the wave of the future. Screen resolutions get higher and higher, and pixel sizes get smaller and smaller, but people's eysight isn't getting any better. Its about time our apps were "actual size" rather than depending on something as arbitrary as the size of a pixel.zerolight said:
The beauty of resolution independant UIs is if you need more real-estate you can simply change the screen DPI, and the windows will get smaller. You can already do this on Tiger, using the the Quartz Debug program, its buggy but it works.
Definitely coming for Leopard.
cybermiguel said:
You see, that's probably not "some" of us, but most of us and almost all of the population of computer users. I grant that you may enjoy your hobby or whatever, but that's one hobby that's too expensive and bothersome and dull for me. Plus I'd have to run Linux or Windows on it.
cybermiguel said:
Yes. Yes, it would.
cybermiguel said:
You mean illegally. Have you no understanding of what it means to hack and then redistribute? It's probably fine for a hacker to hack for his own use, but to distribute hacked copies is nothing more than plagiarism and theft. You think theft is beautiful? You're in for a surprise. If "maxxuss" doesn't watch it, he WON'T be able to do his "great work."
cybermiguel said:
On to a different note. Darwine has been in early development for a long time. With the transition to Intel, they abandoned PPC (rightly). With dual boot, they'll be less motivated. If Apple gains market share or if Windows is virtualized at native speeds, they'll likely abandon the project altogether. It's just, they seem to be progressing too slowly for them to be of any value any time soon.
cybermiguel said:
The first part of what you said is OK...in fact, it sounds a lot like what would happen if developers started writing software for Macs. Question is which will happen, if either.
The second part is not exactly true. UNIX is great, but not a fix-all. As Apple gains market share, it will have to face the virus problem. Thankfully, they're smarter than the MS folks so they might be able to combat it far more effectively.
dr_lha said:
Finally, someone else against software plagiarism/theft/piracy! Why is that so rare?
2 things though. Part of the Apple "premium" is not premium at tall, but the cost of building the machines. Individual pc geeks can make scrap pcs, but they can't mass produce them. Hence the cost.
Second, you CAN (I think) hack OS X legally. You bought it, you should be able to use it on any machine that works, so long as it is for personal use and only on one machine per copy. There is a problem if the stuff that is actually preventing you from running it (any hardware detection stuff, etc) itself is copyrighted, but even then for private use it's probably OK. Can't imagine anyone going through so much trouble constantly as OS X moves along though. However, redistributing OS X means selling a plagiarized product with absolutely no authority to do so.
cybermiguel said:DFI, for example, offers overclocking options, as well as temperature warnings and dual-bios in case that you want to go back to your "safe" settings. Also they have a good cooling system and better integrated components (among other more technical stuff).
OK. As a closet PC 'ricer' as well as Mac user, I can see the appeal. Now, overclocking and other 'enthusiast' options only really make sense if the user has full control over the components (gimme those OCZ DIMMS with crazy activity LEDs on them and insane voltage tolerances!).
Which means one of two options for Apple:
- Massively diversify their product line. Offer dozens of different build-to-order options. This isn't really do-able. You lose some of the integration of a standardised platform. You also incredibly complicate your supply chain.
- Unlock their OS to run on any hardware. I really hope we're all agreed that this quite simply is not an option. It would mean the death of Apple and OS X. Apple is not Microsoft. The reason MS is profitable is not because they sell many copies of Windows. It's the massively expensive licenses for everything else -- SQL Server, IIS, Windows Server 2003, SQL client access licenses, IIS client access licenses, Windows Server client licenses, Office licenses, SharePoint Server and client access licenses. Do not underestimate the absolutely huge amounts of money every single medium to large size business bleeds out to Microsoft. Apple does not have that arrangement, and most likely never will. Why? Because that sort of business model is under attack. Why on earth should every business Windows client need a licence just to access their own files on a Windows fileserver? Seriously: when you enable 'Windows Sharing' in OS X's System Preferences, you're enabling something which every single Windows client in the business world has to pay for. Same goes for the FTP and Web Server features on OS X.
Hardware sales are Apple's lifeblood. They've tried licensing the OS before, and they nearly died. They've tried diversifying the product line (GAAH! *How* many Performas did the world need?), and it simply led to profit dilution and consumer confusion.
Apple's a minority player. But their business is profitable. OS X development is progressing nicely. Their hardware, whilst not suited to all, is nicely built, and attractive enough that they sell enough to make money and re-invest. That's pretty much all I ask.
dr_lha said:
I've been waiting for such a feature for some years now... "I want that window smaller" <resizing> "no, I mean smaller, the menu is painfully big and the icons take away half of the screen". OSX already has the technology to do this. There are some nice tech apps that rotate windows (balancing them out with the sudden motion sensor, fun stuff) or scale the whole thing with the mouse. And since everything is anti aliased in OSX and most of the icons are detailed enough to be scaled up a lot, this should work great. Text resizing in browsers is nice, but the pictures and banners stay the same. How nice would it be to resize those in the process?
A nice way to realize this would be 2 F-keys for adjusting the DPI (like volume ore brightness). Don't like to scroll in the logic mixer? scale it down. Don't want to take out your reading glasses (like Steve in the keynotes whenever he does a demo), scale it up. It would be like resizing your screen but the other way around.
Killer combo
...would be for Leopard to move toward legal Windows apps running quickly (dual boot, virtualization, whatever) and containing both active and passive measures against software piracy. Especially active. Oh boy, would that put on a show or what? Lol.
...would be for Leopard to move toward legal Windows apps running quickly (dual boot, virtualization, whatever) and containing both active and passive measures against software piracy. Especially active. Oh boy, would that put on a show or what? Lol.
AidenShaw said:
You're right, I was already aware of that. I wonder if they'll actually use that hack in apps like Logic to allow use of more than 4 gigs.
(L) said:
That's not the case. The license agreement says you can only use it on Apple hardware.Even if you buy a copy, you're in violation if you install it on generic hardware.
knackroller said:
Wait up. Can't you buy 10.4 if you have 10.1? That IS the price of one upgrade. In other words, wait till it's worth it for you - nobody's forcing you to upgrade every time.
From Apple's site:
Mac OS X Version 10.4 requires a Macintosh with:
PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor
Built-in FireWire
At least 256MB of physical RAM
A built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card supported by your computer
At least 3.0 GB of available space on your hard drive; 4GB of disk space if you install XCode 2 developer tools
DVD drive for installation (get CD media for $9.95)
For one thing I disagree with you - 10.3~10.4 saw many changes other than Dashboard and Spotlight. Another thing - they could wait until they make all those changes and then release it much later...but there is a demand to have innovation NOW, and demand means people are willing to pay for it. If you are not, like I said, nobody's forcing you. 10.5, however, will probably see huge new things, even bigger than 10.4 over 10.3, because they HAVE been waiting to collect new features and to kick Windows's butt. Hopefully they'll release it a week in advance to Windows Vista. Then, Microsoft has 2 options - 1, push back Vista another 3 years, or 2, disappoint everybody with yesteryear technology. The geeks and devs that attend those events are moderately aware of OS X...if they see the competition pull a stunt like that, they will be noticeably less excited to see a semi-transparent glass UI. Lol.
So my question is, why even preview Leopard? Why not just spring it on the world, working closely with devs behind the curtains?
I think your logic is backwards here. Economies of scale coupled with the fact that Apple doesn't buy their hardware through a middle-man mean that its cheaper per box for them to mass produce hardware than it is for someone to custom build the same box themselves.(L) said:
Generally its cheaper to buy a Dell PC than it is to build your own of similar spec for example. The only benifit of "rolling your own" is that you get the hardware you want.
(L) said:
It's not illegal to distribute the hack, it's illegal to distribute hacked copies of OS X. So if you own a copy of OS X and find and apply the hacks yourself, the only thing you've done is violate the OS X EULA, which says that you can only run OS X on Apple hardware. However for most users (ie non corporate users) the EULA doesn't mean much, and I don't think very much of it is actually legally enforceable. I bet 99.9% of Mac users wouldn't notice if 3/4 of the way through the EULA it stated that Apple representatives had the right to steal your wallet.
Also, even if you do download a cracked version of OS X, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
I'm not saying that everyone should be going out and buying regular PCs to run OS X on, just that calling it theft is a bit ridiculous.
About maxxuss hack...umm....it's not exactly a "hack"...it's more like a crack.
The thing is that this guy makes a patch that tells the kernel to bypass the TPM chip that comes with every new mac (I hate the fact that Apple could use that chip to invade our privacy at any time and steal control of our very own machines). Of course, to apply that patch, you must have a full copy of OS X DVD, wich you can obtain at any Apple Retail Store. For example, I'm testing OS X from the DVD that came with an aunt's Mac Mini. It works well, but I had to patch the DVD image with the maxxuss kernel, some generic drivers and some speed hacks in order to get it to work in my "old" Northwood Pentium 4. The installation is easy as with any Mac and it's not unstable at all.
Now, about wine....The Wine project in Linux is still alive and kicking and it runs many commercial apps with no problems at all. Why would the developers of darwine be discouraged with bootcamp or parallel's solution? It's a different approach, as valid as those 2 and I think it would be more successful among switchers the Wine solution.
In fact, if Apple want to seriously look into business and enterprises, they should really pay attention to projects like darwine or wine. That way, people can run "in-house" apps and OS X apps at the same time, seamlessly, without loosing productivity.
The thing is that this guy makes a patch that tells the kernel to bypass the TPM chip that comes with every new mac (I hate the fact that Apple could use that chip to invade our privacy at any time and steal control of our very own machines). Of course, to apply that patch, you must have a full copy of OS X DVD, wich you can obtain at any Apple Retail Store. For example, I'm testing OS X from the DVD that came with an aunt's Mac Mini. It works well, but I had to patch the DVD image with the maxxuss kernel, some generic drivers and some speed hacks in order to get it to work in my "old" Northwood Pentium 4. The installation is easy as with any Mac and it's not unstable at all.
Now, about wine....The Wine project in Linux is still alive and kicking and it runs many commercial apps with no problems at all. Why would the developers of darwine be discouraged with bootcamp or parallel's solution? It's a different approach, as valid as those 2 and I think it would be more successful among switchers the Wine solution.
In fact, if Apple want to seriously look into business and enterprises, they should really pay attention to projects like darwine or wine. That way, people can run "in-house" apps and OS X apps at the same time, seamlessly, without loosing productivity.
it would be sweet if you could get a virtual pc that interacts with bootcamp. you could you's the same apps and programs from your windows xp partition, if you want to yous games and stuff reboot to xp. that would be sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
afornander said:it would be sweet if you could get a virtual pc that interacts with bootcamp. you could you's the same apps and programs from your windows xp partition, if you want to yous games and stuff reboot to xp. that would be sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
VMWare already does that in Windows and Linux. You can set the host machine to use a hard drive partition instead an image, but that is a little bit dangerous if you don't know how to configure well the virtual machine.
Many people that use OS X on regular PCs use VMWare configured to use a partition, so that if they change anything in the mac partition through VMWare as host, they can see that change the next time they reboot in OS X natively. I did that for quite a while.
dr_lha said:
Ok, I should clarify. Pure premium = you pay more for the same thing just because it has the Apple logo. Is this the case? Clearly not. It's not about manufacturing costs, but about cost of the service of building it. Apple CAN mass produce computers, and for that ability they can charge more. It's not about what it costs them to do so, it's about paying for a service you can't find elsewhere. It is cheaper to build your own PowerMac equivalent than to buy the real deal, but you have to physically build it. You see my point? I should have said "the cost of having the machines built," not "the cost of building the machines," even though the latter is also a part of it. Plus, cost per machine isn't a reliable stat since it doesn't consider ability. You can't just say look they can built it cheap but they charge premium, because that "premium" can be partially the service of getting a built machine, as opposed to parts. What would it cost to have an individual assemble powermacs for you? That's exactly how much Apple can charge in addition to the value of the parts, though they may do it for cheaper cost to them. Isn't that the whole point of selling the finished product for a profit? Lol.
dr_lha said:
I don't know about that. You can get parts for pretty darn cheap, and there are plenty of options that meet the dell spec for cheaper. Not to mention the dirty little secret of PC builders: using a "borrowed" OS install disk and saving a hundred or two bucks by not paying microsoft.
seand said:
I think that remains to be seen. Are you a lawyer?
Tripokx said:
Where did you get that idea?? Apple has already announced that 10.5 will be universal.
seand said:
Well, sure, no problem if you buy a copy of OS X. Apple is vertically aligned for a reason, but it is not a vertical monopoly. Still, violating the EULA is still illegal, even if nobody reads it.
Only problem remaining is that OS X is 130 bucks as an upgrade, meaning that your Apple computer normally comes with one included in the price and you upgrade for 130 bucks. Still, that's Apple's problem. If you sell a product that will work a certain way, you can't complain when it is used in that way. Except for the EULA, which does make that illegal, but yeah, that's better than theft since you pay 130 bucks and will end up switching to Mac anyway eventually.seand said:
Now really. I mean, let's not be stupid about this. A guy cracks OS X and sells it as if it is his own. Copyright infringement? Sure, legally. Still, it's blatant theft morally. Morally you don't talk about copyright infringement; you talk about theft. If you download it, you are purchasing for free a product that has been stolen, so effectively you are stealing from Apple. Make no mistake about that. What they call it legally makes no difference to anyone but lawyers, and such theives will still be scum in my eyes.
seand said:
I dare you not to eat your words on that one. You just called it by another name, the principle is the same. Is that more PC for you or something? Does it relax you if it's ONLY copyright infringement, even though the principle is the same? Surely you cannot be so easily blinded? At the end of the day we're talking about being able to walk up to the virtual shelf that is the Internet and pocket what resembles in most aspects a retail product. So you're saying that if I were to, as a Mac user, download 10.4 without paying for it from Apple's site (pretend they stored it on the Internet and I bypassed having to pay for it illegally), I'd be stealing, but if I go to a shady website as a PC user and download a slightly modified version, it would be only copyright infringement? I'm no legal expert, but I bet there's more to it, even legally. But regardless, the sad thing is that I can believe you don't see it. Ridiculous is the screw-up of education that causes that sort of double-speak to get by you unchallenged.
cybermiguel said:
Really to me it makes no difference what it bypasses. Is the act of bypassing it legal, even for individual use? If it is, fine. If not, don't. It's that easy. If it's "just" the EULA and your word is not as good as mine, fine, so long as it remains unenforced. Personally, I'd rather use the product without sneaking around it.
cybermiguel said:
Sure, but when will that whole thing see some fruition beyond ugly mess apps on the Mac? Is it really that promising? I got the sense they take too long and those other solutions will be mainstream by the time they come together. Sure, it's valid as the other 2, but does it work as well NOW? Will it be better than what is out there later? That remains to be seen...I wouldn't be counting on it though.
cybermiguel said:
Yes and no. Me, I prefer the longer way of writing or attracting devs that will write software that beats the Windows programs. Seems like a poor investment since you'll still be losing (one o) productivity if it is all buggy and all that. And that loss in productivity is what inspires people to switch, including developers. It makes you think, do I really need to be switching back to Windows just to use this one program? Or should I port my app to the Mac since so many of my users are only using the Windows version on a windows partition that they may eventually tire of?
I agree with you that there is definitely a demand for what you're talking about, though. Just, I don't see it happening within the next 6 months from
wine. Or even in a year. And if it does happen, it could still have bugs, and maybe even open the way to mild viruses?