Apple today introduced the eMac, a new desktop computer targeted specifically for education that mimics the all-in-one design of the original iMac. The eMac features a 17-inch CRT display (1280×960 maximum resolution at 72 Hz), 700MHz G4 CPU, NVIDIA GeForce2MX graphics, 128MB RAM, and a 40GB hard drive. The US$999 model features a CD-ROM drive while the $1,119 model includes a DVD/CD-RW combo drive. Apple also unveiled a new PowerBook G4 running at speeds of 667MHz and 800MHz and featuring higher-resolution 1280×854 15.2-inch display. The new PowerBook G4 also features a new 4x AGP ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 graphics processor with DVI output.Our Take: I have two problems with the eMac.
The (recommended) 1280×960 resolution of its 17″ CRT is a good res, but I would not be able to stand it 5 minutes at its 72 Hz. “Downgrading” its resolution down to 1152×864 at 80 Hz, it is probably a better solution and you make a favour to your eyes.
My other problem is Apple’s persistance of selling some of their machines with only 128 MB of RAM. I received the G4 450 Mhz Cube last week and it really makes MacOSX fly, not because of its speed (450 Mhz is not top notch these days), but because it came with 448 MB of SDRAM! MacOSX needs more memory than it needs CPU cycles (despite popular belief). Selling the eMac with 256 MB by default would have been more logical for OSX’s needs.
Also, I hope that Apple would at least reduce the prices on the classic G3 iMacs now, as this new eMac is way more powerfull than the classic G3 600 Mhz one, and surprisingly it sells at the same price ($999).
There was a day when Mac=not interested in tech.
This day has been long long long gone.
You should read the news for NERDS sometimes, it actually has been a very interesting place for mac users lately. (it might be because of the UNIX inside logo plastered all over OSX)
see Here for a funny review of a book which is really silly but look at how people on the list are reacting to it:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/30/2020207
ps set your treshold to at least 3 or you get a lot of crap.
and now with apple with it’s own Channel on /. here:
http://apple.slashdot.org/
The day of Macs for Nerds is here and just like buying a BMW after owning a bunch of Ford Tauruses, the new Mac users are hardcore.
To effectivly use computers, it does not require that person to be a geek, or have to know the ins and outs of the OS and hardware platform. A person does not have to be a mechanic to be able to drive a car. People buy cars and drive them, rarely do they go look under the hood. Same idea.
I understand your point, I just fail to see why your are trying to explain it to a bunch of geeks (no offense to anyone in this forum). As far as I can tell, you’re just here bragging about how much money you make, and how precious your time is to you. Seriously, you’re making this issue more complicated than it needs to be by involving economics and business. Some of your comments may be more useful elsewhere like in the Wallstreet Journal.
Don’t you have ANYTHING to say about the technology?
I could try to explain it using tech the same way that Nicholas Blachford did above. but that is not working in this forum. why?
Because this is not a fight about technology.
The Merits of building your own PC has nothing to do with wether or not a Mac is either Cheaper or Better than a PC.
This discution has been about marketing. It was lit up by Eugenia’s frustration with Apple’s Marketing.
Which Followed with Simba’s and TLy’s use of more Marketing speak (from the Wintel perspective)
about the benefits of Wintel over Apples marketing speak.
(If you want Apple biased info about the advantages of Macs look here:
http://www.apple.com/myths/
or look at this: http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/1.html)
There is not a Mhz myth because Ghz are not a relavent measurement of computing performance.
Period no discution.
Even if a P4 is faster than a G4 well how come a K7XP that is 500Mhz “slower” still beat a P4 2Ghz?
Why is it that just this past year just like PPC, other RISC based processors who are a huge degree of performance better than a P4, are just now passing the Ghz barrier?
Why is is that Itanic the mo better picker upper from intel is running at 700Mhz?
Could it be that the Mhz metric is not a real performance Metric?
In 1987 a 14Mhz 680xxx on an Amiga’s was able to deal with and produce NTSC video.
The same processor on the Mac did not.
It took almost 6 years before Quicktime and AVI could do that.
But commodore who was a very mismanaged and had a useless marketing dept didn’t capitalize on their technological power. (Same for DEC and the Alpha incidentaly)
My initial beef with this discution was it’s lack of a real tech basis.
It was from the start a “my red toy is better then your blue toy” type of argument.
I like having both the blue and the red but not as toys as tools.
I like having a bench press drill as well as a handheld drill. Different needs=different tools.
A computer is neither the sum of it’s physical parts alone no HW on it’s own is a computer nor is it only the Os and software.
The totality of theses two parts are the whole.
Why do I say this, because in the Mid 90’s
BeOS was made for and on PPC hardware, the same HW Apple used and it beat the MacOs handily in the performance tests.
If PPC hardware is seperated from Apple software and paired with a RTOS for example it has and does shine nin a lot of advanced situations such as these cases point out:
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020301S0053
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011115S0052
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19991108S0039
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011115S0055
You will note that none of these are Apple related and only talk about the power of PPC74xx (G4) processors.
So as far as hardware technology if we argued only in terms of theorical tech performance, then a 1Ghz G4 would look about the same if not much better then a P4.
But again the Hardware is not the same as the computer, and again refering to Be, it was also much better on Intel based hardware then MS, albeit not as compatible to the plethora of dirt cheap choices, but worked fine on the good stuff.
What Apple touts that most can’t is tighter integration between the Hardware and the Software.
This is what HP/IBM/SUN and even Compaq all sell in their high end systems, because it is the better way of building a computer.
One important myth about Apple hardware is that it is closed.
There was a time that this was partialy true, but these days are far past from the inception of PPC.
A Macintosh is composed of almost all of the same components as a PC AGP/PCI/SDRAM/ATA/USB/IEE1394 are all there
A proprietary but licensable Processor (PPC) which just like X86 processor designs can be licensed by anyone who wants to compete against Moto and IBM
–remember Exponential.
It’s Mobo chipsets are proprietary, but only in the same way that Intel’s and AMD’s 850 and 750 chipsets are. (you can get a X86 reference design from INTC and make your own and this goes as well for PPC which you can license from IBM and MOTO)
So the technology behind PPC is just as open as INTC hardware.
But it might seem closed because what would be the point of designing and building PPC hardware for an even more marginal segment of the computing population, who will have no OS to run on it.
Closed means that there are no licenses available for this hardware.
The PPC Marchitecture which includes the CPU and any logic design attached to it, is available for license from the PPC partners.
So the Mac is as open as the Intel platform which you must license from intel. (go ask Via if it’s having a good time with Intel. speaking of monopolistic practises.)
To recap.
This argument in it’s present form has not been a true nerd argument on the merrits of their chosen platform.
It’s more akin to the arguments on a mainstream site like ZDnet where there is mostly FUD and a lot of info based on Marketing data, which we all know is all CRAP.
PS: Unlike what Simba claimed yesterday, it is not wise to buy an OEM version of Windows because you are aiding and abaiting some else who is breaking MS EULA (from the Win2000 EULA: “The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated product. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may only be used with the HARDWARE as set forth in this EULA.”
you can read more here about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25085.html)
PPS: If I have so much money why do I have 2 to 3 year old computers?
even though $xooo seems like a lot it would only be so if I worked every day.
If I didn’t leave in NYC and rent an Office to work in as well as an apartment to live in and have an office manager to pay and an administrative assisstant.
Cheech.
By the way… Looks like Apple is back into their “I’m so insecure I’m going to sue someone” mode again.
Apparently they just filed a lawsuit against Sorenson over the Quicktime codecs.
Story here:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?T=marketsquote99_news.ht&s=APM…
I wonder… If there were an award for “computer company that has filed the greatest number of frivilous lawsuits and lost”, would Apple win the award?
After all… They sued Microsoft and lost because the courts determined that a concept as broad as a graphical interface to a computer cannot be pantented… They sued e-machines and lost because courts determined that fasion trends (colorful computers) cannot be patented… What’s next?
“PS: Unlike what Simba claimed yesterday, it is not wise to buy an OEM version of Windows because you are aiding and abaiting some else who is breaking MS EULA (from the Win2000 EULA: “The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated product. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may only be used with the HARDWARE as set forth in this EULA.””
Yep… Which is why you can only buy an OEM copy of Windows if you are buying new hardware. But there is absolutely nothing in here that says it is illegal to buy an OEM copy of Windows if you are building your own system. As long as the vendor selling you the OEM copy of Windows is also selling you major system components (motherboards, CPUs, hard disks, etc.) in the SAME order, you can legally buy an OEM copy of Windows.
That is the catch though. The component vendor can ONLY sell you this OEM copy if you are also buying hardware from them at the same time. They cannot sell it to you seperately. Thus, the EULA is not violated.
>>They sued e-machines and lost because courts determined that fasion trends (colorful computers) cannot be patented… What’s next?<<
You need to do some more research, Apple actually won that dispute with a settlement that Daewoo and eMachines would stop building those look alike iMacs;
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-237717.html?tag=bplst
Yeah I agree that Apple is being ridiculous on this one, but it’s about as ridiculous as Microsoft suing Lindows over the ala ‘Windows’ branding!
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/16825.html
Apple is not the only one that is insecure these days!
“You need to do some more research, Apple actually won that dispute with a settlement that Daewoo and eMachines would stop building those look alike iMacs;”
Apple must have won in an appeals court. Because I am sure I read somewhere that the first judge ruled against Apple saying that fashion and design trends could not be patented.
Yeah, I know Microsoft is suing Lindows. But they probably have a reasonably valid argument that the name similarity is intended to cause confusion and is an attempt to ride on Microsoft’s coat tails by possibly deceiving a consumer into believing that Lindows is somehow affiliated or endorsed with Windows.
But there might also be some copyright issues with the underlying technology that can run Windows applications.
Seabass, you are correct. This debate did start initially about Apple’s marketing tactics. We all began questioning performance and the definition of a super computer. This is all I have left to add:
You had made a point saying the technology should take a back seat to the content and creativity. I do agree with this idea. I’m a programmer, I write programs to solve problems on a variety of platforms – from desktops to hand held devices, and several OSes. I don’t let the restrictions of the platform hold me back from greating my applications to do what I want it to do.
The reason why I first began building computers is because I want the technology to take a back seat and not get in the way of my creativity and life style. Think about it. If you have to buy computers and agree to someone else’s terms, and have to live with their restrictions, wouldn’t that get in the way of your work? Example: I was on Dell’s web site configuring a system to get a price quote. It would not allow me to select Windows 2000 as the pre-installed OS because of an issue with the CD-ROM drive. I changed the optical drive option and it refused the new configuration becuase they say it’s “incompatible” with the sound card.
I could have left and went to a different vendor. In reality, there is nothing stopping me from buying Windows 2000 and installing it in a system I build, and I can put whatever sound card, CD-ROM drive, whatever I want in there. You may think it’s silly that Dell has these weird restrictions but it’s true. I may not be accurate at re-describing the system config. on their web site but you get the idea. It is for this reason that many people choose to build their own computers. The power and flexibility, and options.
I want to make it clear that I do support Apple, I have bought an iMac G4, I just take issue with several things they do. One of the biggest mysteries in the computer industry is: If Apple is so great, why were they surpassed by PC’s and Microsoft? I really want to know.
>>Yeah, I know Microsoft is suing Lindows. But they probably have a reasonably valid argument that the name similarity is intended to cause confusion and is an attempt to ride on Microsoft’s coat tails by possibly deceiving a consumer into believing that Lindows is somehow affiliated or endorsed with Windows.<<
This is the exact same argument that Apple had with eMachines over the iMac look alike, which I can attest to when I went visit a friend who worked at Circuit City (back in 1999 of course) at the time and I walked over to the computer section seeing this iMac, until I got closer to realize it was a eMachine eOne, and of course I laughed when I saw it, but I was fooled at first before getting a closer view.
The developers behind KIllustrator were also sued because of its similarity to Adobe’s Illustrator, and both programs perform the same task. The funny thing is, it wasn’t Adobe that sued them!
As for Microsoft vs. Lindows, we all know Microsoft is guilty of unfair, anti-competitive business practices. If they can’t play dirty, they’ll just fight like sissies to squash the competition. That’s just my personal, biased opinion so take it as it is or leave it alone 🙂
>>The developers behind KIllustrator were also sued because of its similarity to Adobe’s Illustrator, and both programs perform the same task. The funny thing is, it wasn’t Adobe that sued them!<<
That is definitely a weird story.
Well you know how it goes, if you can’t sell marketshare, you sue for it 🙂
I don’t know… It seems to me that Microsoft rarely sues anybody.
They are often on the receieving end of lawsuits however.
I think I originally read this story here on OSNews, or The Register. Basically, a German law firm took the initiative and sued the univeristy professor in charge of the KIllustrator project, then turned around and demanded that Adobe pay for thier services, when Adobe had no idea what was going on. Apparently from the article I read, this is common practice maybe not just by Germans. But there is actually a German word that describes this kind of action, lawyers going out hunting for a lawsuit then sueing on behalf of that someone else, and later asking for payment. It’s as if your neighbor’s son shoveling the snow off your sidewalk, or mowing your lawn without you asking and then demanding you pay him. Sad, but funny. Open source can’t always hide behind the shield of “free software”.
TLy
yes you are completely correct about the reasons for building your own.
And this goes for any tool or even for something like food. (I could go and get a can of preprocessed Pasta Sauce or I could make sauce from fresh engredients)
But the reality is that most computers are not bought by individuals when they are in the workstation/tool end of the market spectrum.
Companies are the largest purchasers of these higher end systems, and they have other fish to fry.
It’s nice to fashion your tools and use tools that are perfectly customized to your needs.
But, the reason that Dell/HP/Sun/Compaq/IBM/SGI Market and sell professional workstations is that a lot more professionals feel that getting a top end super polished ultra optimized Deck is a rock solid investment.
you see this in most pro enterprises.
In the Video/Film circles having an Avid is equal to being a real pro, even thought there are plenty of similar or better systems from other vendors.
Photographers get Hasselblad’s and Nikon’s when they become Pro’s.
ENG camera men get Sony Betacam camera’s when they strike on their own.
In Architecture, there are a plethora of very capable CAD/CAM packages and even a bunch of smaller pieces of software that can be assembled into much more powerful suites than what is offered when one gets Autodesk AutoCad, but that doesn’t matter to most Pro’s they want to shell out the $3000 grands for Autocad, because that is what their peers get, and what is “profesional”
My last roomate was the CTO of a Financial artificial intelligence software outfit on the Street.
When he started there were 35 programmers all proficient in their craft and of course very capable computer experts.
All of the computers where built by the IT techs to the programmers specs, and everyone loved being able to swap parts, upgrade parts, and not be stuck with an off the shelf CPU.
When the company got more funding and hired 60 more programmers around the world; things got a little more complicated.
How do you inventory material which you’ve only gotten in parts.
Do you actually have to go in and get serial # off of each
part?
what about when one part breaks, if each seat is supposed to cost a certain amount in the budget; do you have to track the cost assossiated with each part, or with each computer.
A few of the programers got SunBlades which despite their low entry cost are a little more costly then Intel because there spare parts cost more (ever price sun Memory!?!)
But those machines over a year period where the most hastle free and ended up costing a lot less then the home brewed PCs.
So my roomate made the decision to standardise all workstations and use 2 vendors for kit. One for High end workstations and servers and one for low end office kit.
Right away the benefits where appearant and even the programmers who where the most “do it yourselfers” liked the feeling of having a “professional” machine doing their serious work.
This example of course is just an example, and really talks more about the $ bottom line rather then technology.
But the two do go together.
This was examplified by the dotcom bust recently.
A lot of those dotcoms where buying really really expensive hardware/software/services, because of their misconception that because it’s more expensive and professional it will help the company with prospective clients by impressing them with the perceived quality of the tools they used.
(IBM, SUN, and HP made a killing during those days)
But most of their needs could have been fullfiled with home brew or at least vanilla pro systems, but their ignorance of both the technology they peddled and of the finances involved in buying Big Iron got the best of them.
(do you think any of them thought about the cost of IBM’s service contract when they bought their Xseries servers? among other idiocies, those same people also went to buy useless Porche 2 seat Boxters, instead of something like a BMW which although a little more then a Ford are levels of quality higher and are actually usable; especially for moving stuff out of the $5000 studio apt in Tribeca when you get kicked out after your stupid idea tanks.)
Aynway I’m a little hung over today so I don’t feel as clear as I could be, but here is the conclusion of this rant.
My point is that yes you and I can build for ourselves great systems that can take on the best of what IBM and HP can dish out; but in the end what we as individuals can build for ourselves, has nothing to do with what the real purchasers of workstations want wether Apple’s G4 workstations for publishing or Dell Precision workstation for 3d animation, or an IBM’s Intellistation for CAD/CAM.
America is the land of the Do it Yourself, but the economics of capitalism dictate what is available, for how much and how it is distributed.
I really would love to see the purchasing demographics for CPU buyers for all of the majors as well as the minors and the Boxed parts.
That would make some nice graphs.
PS:
I’ve actually had a similar experience with Dell.
I was trying to get 4 Basic office PC’s, without any Office software package, as I already owned office on the cpus I was replacing.
On the list of items in the BTO the system had to either have Office and Works or just Works but could be blank.
If you tried to price it with just Office it would still charge you for Works + a removal fee, as it was part of the standard disk image Dell used in replication, and would need to therefore be custom set up.
This is definitly MS’ doing as it is how Office pushed Wordperfect out of the way.
Why buy Wordperfect if all Peecees come with Works or Office?
anyway
Ciao
MS is being tried for being a monopoly and using their monopoly power to “crush’ their competion with useless suits (which they can afford and their competitors can’t). If I barely search on google for “Microsoft Lawsuits” I find hundreds of suits from MS.
The Lindows suit is silly because Linus should sue them as well because you know “Lin” is in Lindows too.
Intel is constantly sueing it’s competitors and it’s clients. (Via, AMD, Intergraph,etc)
In fact most companies use suits as a leveraging tool in their business dealings, that this is constantly held against Apple is pretty ridiculous.
Another important thing is that Sorenson IS breaching it’s contract.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1998/jan/06sorenson.html
Above is the original press release for QT3+sorenson.
The word “exclusive” is sprinkled in the release and from what I understand it means that anything sorenson makes compression related has to be part of an Apple product or use apple products.
This is what a business contract is, you scratch my back big brother and I’ll let you play with my cool toy.
in any case the merrits of the suit are really not what people are complaining about is it?
Really people are saying “How dare they, they are in no position to request anything from anyone, those loosers.”
Oh well I guess anyone should copy a GPLed software and include it in closed source commercial software and not re-release the source, since no cool geek company would stoop so low as to sue an abuser of their licenses.
What kind of defense is
“I don’t know…”
and then to follow it with:
“It seems to me that Microsoft rarely sues anybody.
They are often on the receieving end of lawsuits however.”
How can I even listen to someones argument after they don’t substantiate their statements with nothing but tin air.
you either have the material to back your statements or you don’t.
In this tread you have done this so many times it’s ridiculous and then you always ignore the data when it is presented to you.
what is this>”#1: Almost no software takes advantage of Altivec. Photoshop is one of the few exceptions. ”
which is easily dispelled by noting that :
#1 anything running on top of OsX benefits as OsX use Altivec to speed it’s quartz interface, and to power Quicktime, which if you used a mac would know that quicktime is the underliying media framework for the whole OS, and everything therefore benefits from accelerated QT.
#2 Lightwave, Maya, EI Universe, Bryce, Carrara, Amorphium.
#3 FCP, Combustion, AE, Media100, Avid Xpress DV mac edition.
#4 ProTools, Cubase, Peak, Nuendo, Logic, Reason, all of which benefit greatly from Altivec’s processing power, which alone rivals PCI based DSPs.
#5 Painter, Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator, Freehand, Flash MX, Flash 5, Livemotion.
Oh but Office doesn’t use altived natively, but does it use SSE2 or 3Dnow? NO. does it need to? NO.
What about this one>
“how come IBM is abandoing PowerPC archetecture in favor of Intel’s IA64? ”
To which someone asked what the hell are you where smoking and you replied.
“I read an article in Linux Magazine (probably about 18 months old by now) which was an interview with an IBM big wig. The statement was made that RS/6000 would gradually be phased out in favor of IA64. That’s one reason IBM ported AIX to IA64.”
#1 This is the internet, where is the article?
#2 why is IBM investing so much in new Power and PPC CPU’s if they are ditching them?
Could it be that the IA64 machines would be replacing Xseries servers and Pro series workstations?
both of which already have “Intel inside”
#3 IBM’s Intel group is Seperate from it’s PPC and POWER groups which are very very Profitable where the INTEL group is OK.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=IBM
To top it off you say this when you are further challanged:
“All I know is what I read from an IBM big wig. And it said that IBM will gradually phase out their PowerPC based systems in favor of IA64 and will encourage their customers to make the switch on their new system purchases.”
What big wig?
Why did they just release Power4 if it’s a waste of their time?
You really think that they are going to “Compaq” themselves and stop producing the crown Jewels?
That sounds a little crazy for the company that sells the most non-intel servers in the market.
And makes a huge chunk of it’s money with the service contracts attached to those servers?
They definitly be making IA64 hardware but only as an addition to their Power based product, just like they do now with their Pentium and Xeon offerings.
What’s this crap?
“I don’t care why Apple thinks they have to charge so much. It doesn’t change the fect that from a consumer point of view, they are overpriced. And we live in a supply and demand economy. When demand goes down, prices must drop. When competition goes up, prices must drop as well. Apple needs to find ways to cut manufacturing costs instead of just trying to justify their high prices.”
What the hell are you talking about?
You yourself said this:
“their prices are not reasonable in my opinion.”
How is your opinion the same as “from a consumer point of view” you are just one customer with your opinion.
Many others with a different opinion have voted with their cash into Apple’s pocket, period do you think Apple will refuse the cash if they found out their buyers are crazed fanatics?
Aren’t those buyers also “from a consumer point of view”?
Then using your explanation of supply and demand to further your statement in this really silly way.
What…..have you not heard about Quality vs Quantity differences?
Sure I could get a Ford Taurus which is a very good car and it really does what I would need it for, but if I can get a BMW for $50 more a month shouldn’t I pay the extra money and get the higher quality Item?
Sure demand for computers in general has dropped but you have to account for the fact that there is a base price that a computer costs no matter who makes it which is the cost of the sum of it’s parts+ the labor put into it.
Dell/Gateway/Sony/Apple all rose the price of their products this year even thought demand isn’t so hot.
Why because component prices rise when the amount of components sold is lower; why because the component makers have to also recoup their investement which is a fixed amount as well .
And what’s this claim about Apple’s manufacturing capability?
Do you even read the tech news?
Apple has the 2nd highest rated manufacturing to shelf capacity. 2nd only to Dell.
It has the lowest amounts of parts sitting on it’s shelf, which is important because of the volatility of parts prices; and it’s been recognized troughout the industry as one of the most efficient manufacturers.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=AAPL
What’s this?
“Nice try Seabass. Buying a Dell or any other namebrand system doesn’t save you from having to make most of the decisions you listed.”
You mean to tell me that everyone researches every component on their Dell?
#1 when I go to Dell to make a BTO, I only have 2 or 3 real choices to make because the rest has already been decided for me.
#2 most people don’t look into every component they buy because most people don’t know what those components do.
They just want to surf (most computer can do that) write emails, do basic acounting, and play games.
#3 people called Hobbist, Experts, Overclockers, Hardcore Gamers, are the minority of computer users, a very very tiny group even smaller then Apple’s market share.
This is pretty easy here:
“Apple must have won in an appeals court. Because I am sure I read somewhere that the first judge ruled against Apple saying that fashion and design trends could not be patented. ”
First of all there was 3 different cases.
1. Was eMachines and it’s Korean Parent compagny.
2.Was Sotec (a japanese company)
3. was Future Power and Daewoo.
here is more on this here: (they all settled because there was a lot of precedent. for example ferrari sued “Replicar” makers and Won)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2088347,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/22/no.imac.clone.idg/
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-232617.html?tag=bplst
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-237717.html
Second from ZDnet:
“Trade dress is an adjunct to trademark laws; it is considered an unregistered trademark and can protect a product or service’s shape, appearance, color, packaging or sales method against copying by a competitor.”
and then this about MS:
“Yeah, I know Microsoft is suing Lindows. But they probably have a reasonably valid argument that the name similarity is intended to cause confusion and is an attempt to ride on Microsoft’s coat tails by possibly deceiving a consumer into believing that Lindows is somehow affiliated or endorsed with Windows. ”
You mean it’s OK for a company like “WinBook” or a Product like “Winfax” but when it’s a competitor get them and shove that big stick somewhere deep.
Anyway simba, the reality is that A=A and just because you said so and we should all believe you, A+A is never going to become B.
PS Simba:
Sorry about the crankyness today, too hungover to be doing this, but what the hell, this heated me up.
I’m sure you can understand being in college and all.
“Many others with a different opinion have voted with their cash into Apple’s pocket, period do you think Apple will refuse the cash if they found out their buyers are crazed fanatics?”
Yep. And this is why Apple has less than 3% marketshare and that share is still continuing to dwindle. This is also why many companies have dropped their Mac software products due to “lack of demand” right?
“You mean it’s OK for a company like “WinBook” or a Product like “Winfax” but when it’s a competitor get them and shove that big stick somewhere deep.”
There is a difference though because these products both require Windows to run. In fact, these products have permission from Microsoft to use the copyrighted name of Windows and also the copyrighted logo. (Those little logos on the laptop keyboard or the software box that say “Designed for Microsoft Windows XP” and such). These products are not attempting to compete or replace Microsoft Windows. In fact, they require Windows to work.
With Lindows, it is a different story. Lindows is a competing product. And come on. Only the first letter of the name is diferent. Microsoft probably has a legally valid argument here. (They wouldn’t have one with Winfax or Winbook since the products are intended for a different purpose than Windows OS).
“PS Simba:
Sorry about the crankyness today, too hungover to be doing this, but what the hell, this heated me up.
I’m sure you can understand being in college and all.”
Yep… Finals are only two weeks away. Always a stressful time.
OSX itself DOES NOT use AltiVec. You say that it does to speed up Quartz drawing, if this is true, then I must say AltiVec absoultely sucks because drawing in OSX is very painful.
On the topic about Microsoft, they really are out to get everybosy, even the software companies that support Windows. To me, it looks like Microsoft wants to replace a lot of third party software with crap they cook up in their spare time. In the future, third party developers programming for Windows will actually be making Web services that are written specifically for Windows and IE, no longer are we going to be able to write native programs for Windows, MS has their own staff for that. This is just my opinion, I’m still angry with MS.
“To top it off you say this when you are further challanged:
“All I know is what I read from an IBM big wig. And it said that IBM will gradually phase out their PowerPC based systems in favor of IA64 and will encourage their customers to make the switch on their new system purchases.”
What big wig?
Why did they just release Power4 if it’s a waste of their time?”
This information was taken from an interview with an IBM exect published in Linux Magazine. I’m sure you will be able to find it if you look. Linux Magazine makes back issues available on their web site.
“#1 This is the internet, where is the article?”
What do I look like to you? Do your own damn research. What more do you need? I told you it ran about 18 months ago and that it was in Linux Magazine. If you bothered to do any poking around at all, you would know that Linux Magazine makes their back issues available on line. So I practically spoon fed it to you. Go to Linux Magazines web site and look at back issues.
And they released Power4 for one simple reason: IA64 isn’t ready for mainstream use yet.
Why do you think they spent so much money porting AIX to IA64?
OSx quartz isn’t painfully slow.
The finder is, which is seperate.
Quartz is Altivec accelerated.
The Finder does the job that Nautilus does when paired with Gnome; and that can slows down the entire system when the file manager is slow.
If Quartz was unnaturaly slow, there would be no reason for Maya for OsX which requires Quartz to be in “Tip Top” shape.
It’s not the responsibility of the reader of an argument to look into the basis of an argument, but that of the Writer to back up their claim.
What ?no debate team experience?
Eugenia I just wanted to say, you are doing a really good job with this site, thank you.
Noticing that most of the front page news comes from you, I realized that this site wouldn’t really exist without your participation.
Have you thought of asking the owner of this site for ownership rights for the computer you are using?
It really should be yours to keep, considering.