Microsoft's bid to sieze control of all PC use

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-02-27 07:22pm

Or better yet, they "accidentally" put in an armed war head.

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-02-27 10:17pm

Durandal wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:
Defiant wrote:That's it, I'm buying a Mac.
When going to extremes like that, why not settle with an Atari?
Very funny. How does this change the fact that your Microsoft overloads will soon dominate every aspect of your digital life, while I'll be free from all that bullshit on my Mac?

If anybody on this board switches to Mac, I'll provide tech support FOR FREE. For the life of your Mac. Any questions. Period.

Within reason, of course. No international calls...

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-27 10:46pm

Same for linux

. Though you can find better on usenet.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-27 11:24pm

too true... I for one have no intention whatsoever of staying with M$ past win2k... no XP for me -- next stop is linux (already have redhat 8, but havent built anything to use it yet). I doubt I will ever seriously use a mac, as they are almost as closed-minded as M$ is, but on the hardware side.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-28 12:36am

darthdavid wrote:Or better yet, they "accidentally" put in an armed war head.

But then you'll kill Lycoris (AKA Redmond Linux, one of the newer "user friendly" distros, better than Lindows or Xandros since it's fully open source)!

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-28 12:42am

darthdavid wrote:Or better yet, they "accidentally" put in an armed war head.

But then you'll kill Lycoris (AKA Redmond Linux, one of the newer "user friendly" distros, better than Lindows or Xandros since it's fully open source)!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 11:13am

Cap'n Hector wrote:
Durandal wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote: When going to extremes like that, why not settle with an Atari?
Very funny. How does this change the fact that your Microsoft overloads will soon dominate every aspect of your digital life, while I'll be free from all that bullshit on my Mac?
If anybody on this board switches to Mac, I'll provide tech support FOR FREE. For the life of your Mac. Any questions. Period.

Within reason, of course. No international calls...

I already get paid to do Mac support for my university.

Shaka[Zulu] wrote:too true... I for one have no intention whatsoever of staying with M$ past win2k... no XP for me -- next stop is linux (already have redhat 8, but havent built anything to use it yet). I doubt I will ever seriously use a mac, as they are almost as closed-minded as M$ is, but on the hardware side.

Well, 90% of the components in a Mac are the same ones found in a PC. The only real differences are the motherboard and CPU (consequently, the two most important components

). I think it's safe to say that Macs could work very well for your average computer user, but not really for people who like constantly upgrading their machines or building their own systems.

Even so, if Apple moves to IBM's PowerPC 970, there's going to be plenty to drool about on the Mac side ...

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-28 12:49pm

IBM are one of the big TCPA players too......

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-02-28 01:16pm

Durandal wrote:Well, 90% of the components in a Mac are the same ones found in a PC. The only real differences are the motherboard and CPU (consequently, the two most important components ). I think it's safe to say that Macs could work very well for your average computer user, but not really for people who like constantly upgrading their machines or building their own systems.

Even so, if Apple moves to IBM's PowerPC 970, there's going to be plenty to drool about on the Mac side ...

I've always found the build-your-own crowd that uses Windows to be amusing...you built the computer and then went with the OS that allows for little tweaking (in comparison to Linux)...

And it's a shame people can't build Macs, but it makes developing the Mac OS easier for Apple, and it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

And I can't wait for the PPC 970...if they use it, that's my next iBook.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-28 02:33pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:IBM are one of the big TCPA players too......

TCPA is separate from Palladium

http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/

There's an IBM driver for TCPA, and it's opensource too. At least we will know Linux works with TCPA.

Please read and analyse before posting. Uh, can anyone copy and paste onto the board? I hate PDF files since they are hard to read on a slow computer.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 03:19pm

Cap'n Hector wrote:I've always found the build-your-own crowd that uses Windows to be amusing...you built the computer and then went with the OS that allows for little tweaking (in comparison to Linux)...

Windows allows for much more tweaking than Mac OS X, at this point, at least in terms of general customizability. The open *nix roots of OS X allow it to be tweaked more at the system level, though.

And it's a shame people can't build Macs, but it makes developing the Mac OS easier for Apple, and it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

It'll never happen. Jobs initially made a dumbshit decision by not licensing the OS, and now it's impossible for him to do so without losing massive amounts of revenue.

And I can't wait for the PPC 970...if they use it, that's my next iBook.

I hate to burst your bubble, but no it won't be. The 970 will not be suitable for laptop use until at least a year after its initial debut. If they use it, it will be in XServes and maybe towers.

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-02-28 03:40pm

Durandal wrote:
Cap'n Hector wrote:I've always found the build-your-own crowd that uses Windows to be amusing...you built the computer and then went with the OS that allows for little tweaking (in comparison to Linux)...
Windows allows for much more tweaking than Mac OS X, at this point, at least in terms of general customizability. The open *nix roots of OS X allow it to be tweaked more at the system level, though.

I know, I was comparing it to Linux on purpose. Apple has never made customizing the Mac OS easy, but people still manage to do it. If you run stuff from Darwin, you've got all kinds of options, including KDE and other windowing systems...at the Aqua level you can't change much.

Durandal wrote:
Cap'n Hector wrote:And it's a shame people can't build Macs, but it makes developing the Mac OS easier for Apple, and it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
It'll never happen. Jobs initially made a dumbshit decision by not licensing the OS, and now it's impossible for him to do so without losing massive amounts of revenue.

As I said, it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make since it increases stability. Reasonably uniform hardware makes development easier.

Durandal wrote:
Cap'n Hector wrote:And I can't wait for the PPC 970...if they use it, that's my next iBook.
I hate to burst your bubble, but no it won't be. The 970 will not be suitable for laptop use until at least a year after its initial debut. If they use it, it will be in XServes and maybe towers.

As I recall, there's a 1.25 Ghz version that uses >20 watts, which is perfect for laptops. It has a good chance of making it into the PowerBook within six months of a tower, I'd say.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 04:48pm

Cap'n Hector wrote:I know, I was comparing it to Linux on purpose. Apple has never made customizing the Mac OS easy, but people still manage to do it. If you run stuff from Darwin, you've got all kinds of options, including KDE and other windowing systems...at the Aqua level you can't change much.

Did you use the Classic Mac OS? Just about every system API was open and documented. Developers could essentially modify anything they wanted. That's what made the Mac shareware community famous.

As I said, it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make since it increases stability. Reasonably uniform hardware makes development easier.

Apple doesn't do any of its own motherboard development. It gets the motherboard from Motorola and designs pretty plastic cases to put it in.

As I recall, there's a 1.25 Ghz version that uses >20 watts, which is perfect for laptops. It has a good chance of making it into the PowerBook within six months of a tower, I'd say.

Yeah, but how cheap is it? We have no idea how much the 970 will cost.

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-02-28 05:44pm

Someone arguing Macs who knows about them...cool.

Durandal wrote:
Cap'n Hector wrote:I know, I was comparing it to Linux on purpose. Apple has never made customizing the Mac OS easy, but people still manage to do it. If you run stuff from Darwin, you've got all kinds of options, including KDE and other windowing systems...at the Aqua level you can't change much.
Did you use the Classic Mac OS? Just about every system API was open and documented. Developers could essentially modify anything they wanted. That's what made the Mac shareware community famous.

You have a point there. I've heard complaints about APIs being closed in X. I'm not sure how that affects the *nix apps, however. Closed APIs suck.

Durandal wrote:
Cap'n Hector wrote:As I said, it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make since it increases stability. Reasonably uniform hardware makes development easier.
Apple doesn't do any of its own motherboard development. It gets the motherboard from Motorola and designs pretty plastic cases to put it in.

It doesn't? Too bad. Well, that still gives them uniform hardware to run the OS on, it just means they won't know the nooks and crannies of the motherboards as well.

My comment about uniform hardware still stands.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-28 07:51pm

Cap'n Hector wrote:
Durandal wrote:Well, 90% of the components in a Mac are the same ones found in a PC. The only real differences are the motherboard and CPU (consequently, the two most important components ). I think it's safe to say that Macs could work very well for your average computer user, but not really for people who like constantly upgrading their machines or building their own systems.

Even so, if Apple moves to IBM's PowerPC 970, there's going to be plenty to drool about on the Mac side ...
I've always found the build-your-own crowd that uses Windows to be amusing...you built the computer and then went with the OS that allows for little tweaking (in comparison to Linux)...
snip
.

Most people who build there own, then use windows, do so because they dont know how to use Linux. These people also use windows because thats what most games will play on. I am one of these people

However I will be learning Linux at some point as I really dont like Microsith {thats what happens when you are a winblows oreinted tech}

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-02-28 07:55pm

Stuart Mackey wrote: Most people who build there own, then use windows, do so because they dont know how to use Linux. These people also use windows because thats what most games will play on. I am one of these people However I will be learning Linux at some point as I really dont like Microsith {thats what happens when you are a winblows oreinted tech}

I can respect a build-your-own dualbooter, but if you're technical enough to build your own comp, then do a good OS for it...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-28 08:09pm

Cap'n Hector wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Most people who build there own, then use windows, do so because they dont know how to use Linux. These people also use windows because thats what most games will play on. I am one of these people However I will be learning Linux at some point as I really dont like Microsith {thats what happens when you are a winblows oreinted tech}
I can respect a build-your-own dualbooter, but if you're technical enough to build your own comp, then do a good OS for it...

Building a computer, I have found, is no more complicated than a mech lego set, or less so. And a good O/S is only as good as what your requirements are, and what you know about O/S's.

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-02-28 08:21pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Cap'n Hector wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Most people who build there own, then use windows, do so because they dont know how to use Linux. These people also use windows because thats what most games will play on. I am one of these people However I will be learning Linux at some point as I really dont like Microsith {thats what happens when you are a winblows oreinted tech}
I can respect a build-your-own dualbooter, but if you're technical enough to build your own comp, then do a good OS for it...
Building a computer, I have found, is no more complicated than a mech lego set, or less so. And a good O/S is only as good as what your requirements are, and what you know about O/S's.

I just wish more people knew about Linux...

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-02-28 09:42pm

I'd go linux, but i need my gamage.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-28 11:11pm

My linux from scratch is giving me headaches. Literally hundreds, possibly exceeding 1000, all shoved in the same directery. Now I got to organize them before burning them, then compile them one by one. Also, half of them are out of date.

. I wish I had broadband, then I would'nt have to download I *might* use, most likely not.

Due to shoppers syndrome, I've downloaded tons of stuff I don't need. Like USB drivers. I never use the scanner.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-28 11:54pm

Cap'n Hector wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Cap'n Hector wrote: I can respect a build-your-own dualbooter, but if you're technical enough to build your own comp, then do a good OS for it...
Building a computer, I have found, is no more complicated than a mech lego set, or less so. And a good O/S is only as good as what your requirements are, and what you know about O/S's.

I just wish more people knew about Linux...

Agreed

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-03-01 11:31pm

Again without the gamage, linux will never become big.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-03-02 05:05am

i LOVE/miss my AMD

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-03-02 05:17am

darthdavid wrote:Again without the gamage, linux will never become big.

They can get around that though, right?

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2003-03-02 09:37am

Shinova wrote:
darthdavid wrote:Again without the gamage, linux will never become big.
They can get around that though, right?

Maybe.

The basic problem is Linux is still way way too small a share of the Desktop market were the volumn sales are.

Gamage will not come to Linux till some of the more basic fundemental problems are addressed. IE how user friendly it is, and how idiot proof it is.