Windows 7: More disapointing as the days go on

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

maybe i'm misunderstanding. so they are writing software for their keyboards and mice?

I have no clue what point you're trying to make. Sorry.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

maybe i'm misunderstanding. so they are writing software for their keyboards and mice?

They are writing software for their computers. What those computers are assembled of doesn't matter, it's still their intent to have it as a closed system.. OS X installs on Apple computers only (defined as computers coming from Apple).

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by photon

They are writing software for their computers. What those computers are assembled of doesn't matter, it's still their intent to have it as a closed system.. OS X installs on Apple computers only (defined as computers coming from Apple).

I think he's already well aware of that. There was some other veiled point he was trying to make, but I'm not able to figure it out.

There is also a lot of room to argue that Apple is very much hands-on with all of the components in their systems. The processors might be built by Intel, but they are built according to Apple's specifications. Apple doesn't just order a bunch of retail processors for their machines. Even the RAM is timed according to their own specs.

Also, of interesting note, is this blurb from the bit about blocking the Atom processor:

Apple had apparently initially envisioned using the Atom platform in its tablet computer project, but dissatisfaction with the performance of the platform reportedly led to the company's purchase of ARM chip designer P.A. Semi in early 2008 and a shift to that company's technology for the tablet.

So, it looks like the processors for their new tablets are going to be built in-house instead of using Intel or AMD. Of course, "in-house" doesn't literally have to mean Cupertino...

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Welcome to the difference between being a hardware company that writes its own software vs a software company that writes its software for all hardware. People keep thinking that Apple is a software company. They aren't. They are a hardware company who writes their own software for their own hardware.

I still wonder why they haven't transitioned to a software company.

It used to be that their hardware was unique, now it isn't. Before their hardware carried a premium, now it's priced pretty close to what Dell or HP would charge for something similar (close in some cases anyway), so they don't have that huge margin that they used to.

And the fact that people are jumping through all these hoops to put OSX on their hardware shows the demand for it.

It's been said before, OS X seems like a perfect mass market alternative to Windows if Apple would just run with it, and there's less reason today than there's ever been for them not to.

The only thing I can think of is they don't want to get into the same driver support difficulty supporting other hardware would bring that other OSes have to deal with.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

PS: btw, just so we're clear... What you were planning to do is actually illegal. Complaining about not being able to do it is akin to someone else complaining that the gas station down the street just installed an alarm system, so now they can't break into it like they were planning.

Illegal yes but there is the question of should an EULA restrict what do with something you buy after the purchase? Personally I hate the idea that more and more purchasing software is more like renting it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

There is also a lot of room to argue that Apple is very much hands-on with all of the components in their systems. The processors might be built by Intel, but they are built according to Apple's specifications. Apple doesn't just order a bunch of retail processors for their machines. Even the RAM is timed according to their own specs.

They do, but the things are usually minor.. a different packaging, or as you say specific timings, but it's still the same processor and instruction set.

I think Apple does those things because something like the physical design is so much more important to Apple, they're willing to pay Intel extra $$ to get a processor with a completely different packaging.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

So, it looks like the processors for their new tablets are going to be built in-house instead of using Intel or AMD. Of course, "in-house" doesn't literally have to mean Cupertino...

Interesting, I hadn't heard about that previously. Again Apple more concerned about the actual device, it has to be a specific size, usability paramount, so performance per watt is more important than sticking to Intel.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by photon

I still wonder why they haven't transitioned to a software company.

It used to be that their hardware was unique, now it isn't. Before their hardware carried a premium, now it's priced pretty close to what Dell or HP would charge for something similar (close in some cases anyway), so they don't have that huge margin that they used to.

And the fact that people are jumping through all these hoops to put OSX on their hardware shows the demand for it.

It's been said before, OS X seems like a perfect mass market alternative to Windows if Apple would just run with it, and there's less reason today than there's ever been for them not to.

The only thing I can think of is they don't want to get into the same driver support difficulty supporting other hardware would bring that other OSes have to deal with.



Illegal yes but there is the question of should an EULA restrict what do with something you buy after the purchase? Personally I hate the idea that more and more purchasing software is more like renting it.

Exactly. That's the mess that Windows has been in from the start. Without any way to regulate hardware (other than standards), mass driver support is just a huge headache.

Interesting that you mention the "buying software is more like renting it" thing. I'm using Windows XP inside a VM and every single time I changed something on that VM, I have to re-activate the OS. I just change the RAM setting from 1024 to 2048, for example, and had to reactivate Windows when I loaded it up. Since I know I can only do that an unknown number of times, I'm not looking forward to the day I go to increase the HD size, only to be told that I can no longer use my copy of Windows XP because it can't be activated any more.

Overall, I'm still up in the air about whether I'd like to see Mac OS freed up or not. On one hand, it would be fun to see how much impact it would have on the overall landscape. On the other hand, I'm pretty terrified of the mess that would probably ensue from having to allow the same scale of hardware support that Windows has to.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by photon

They do, but the things are usually minor.. a different packaging, or as you say specific timings, but it's still the same processor and instruction set.

I think Apple does those things because something like the physical design is so much more important to Apple, they're willing to pay Intel extra $$ to get a processor with a completely different packaging.



Interesting, I hadn't heard about that previously. Again Apple more concerned about the actual device, it has to be a specific size, usability paramount, so performance per watt is more important than sticking to Intel.

That's a good point. I've often wondered how much the focus on these Apple-specific components is geared towards performance vs spatial requirements.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by photon

I still wonder why they haven't transitioned to a software company.

Look at Apple's stock performance - what incentive does the company have to go software only? They are spectacularly successful as a company doing exactly what they are doing.

OS X is not a profit generator for them, the hardware is. Apple has also said that they will not participate in the race to the bottom on price - if they released OS X broadly, they would be competing on price with MS, and would lose the price of admission to OS X that is Apple hardware.

You could also argue, with some validity, I think, that Steve Jobs is not going to let OS X run on crap hardware. He has an aesthetic principle that I don't think he will let go of, and a level of (benevolent) dictatorial control over the company that its just not going to happen.

Edit - crap looking and feeling hardware. We all know its a PC on the inside, its the total experience that Jobs is so concerned about

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

There will be no lawsuits, nor should there be.

Edit: Also, MS never got sued for "offering a free web browser." They got sued for making it impossible to uninstall that web browser and install someone else's in its place.

I agree, there won't be lawsuits and there shouldn't be. I'd be willing to bet that if it was Microsoft someone would try though.

Well, I'm fairly sure there's been more than one lawsuit regarding IE. In the one I'm thinking of, at least according to the summaries, the issue was not that you couldn't install another web browser (cause that's just plain not true) it was that pre-packaging IE with windows gave it an unfair advantage and was 'anti-competitive'.

Originally Posted by photon

It used to be that their hardware was unique, now it isn't. Before their hardware carried a premium, now it's priced pretty close to what Dell or HP would charge for something similar (close in some cases anyway), so they don't have that huge margin that they used to.

And the fact that people are jumping through all these hoops to put OSX on their hardware shows the demand for it.

It's been said before, OS X seems like a perfect mass market alternative to Windows if Apple would just run with it, and there's less reason today than there's ever been for them not to.

This is more or less what I was going to respond with so I'll just quote it and leave it at that...

Originally Posted by photon

Illegal yes but there is the question of should an EULA restrict what do with something you buy after the purchase? Personally I hate the idea that more and more purchasing software is more like renting it.

Also I'll agree with this. I'm not too worried about the legalities of what I was planning on doing. If they really want to bust my balls for buying their products, it'll be interesting to see. I've done some things with my CDs and mp3s that violate how the RIAA and equivalent organisations would like to define, interpret and enforce license agreements. I would be willing to bet that a majority of people here have. Is anyone here REALLY worried about it? No. Do most people side with the RIAA on this junk and think what they're trying to do is fair to consumers? No.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Interesting that you mention the "buying software is more like renting it" thing. I'm using Windows XP inside a VM and every single time I changed something on that VM, I have to re-activate the OS. I just change the RAM setting from 1024 to 2048, for example, and had to reactivate Windows when I loaded it up. Since I know I can only do that an unknown number of times, I'm not looking forward to the day I go to increase the HD size, only to be told that I can no longer use my copy of Windows XP because it can't be activated any more.

Is there an actual hard limit to the number of activations you can do? I think there's a limit to how many of the automatic online-type activations you can do but I thought the number you can do through their phone in method was unlimited. It might raise a couple eyebrows after your 50th activation of the same license and you might have to jump through some hoops but I didn't think there was a technical reason why you couldn't continue doing it.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

...the issue was not that you couldn't install another web browser (cause that's just plain not true) it was that pre-packaging IE with windows gave it an unfair advantage and was 'anti-competitive'.

I was already in the IT field and supporting PCs when Windows 98 came out.

The lawsuit was because IE4 was integrated into Win98 so deeply that it was impossible to uninstall it. Yes, you could instal Netscape, but you couldn't use it as your default browser because Win98 forced you to use IE4.

This was the basis of the lawsuit that eventually saw MS un-embed IE from Win98 SE and offer an uninstall process for IE in Win98.

Edit: I'm doing this from memory, btw. This was back in 97, so it was at least 12 years ago. My memory of the exact details is obviously fuzzy, but I'm sure I have the gist right.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Is there an actual hard limit to the number of activations you can do? I think there's a limit to how many of the automatic online-type activations you can do but I thought the number you can do through their phone in method was unlimited. It might raise a couple eyebrows after your 50th activation of the same license and you might have to jump through some hoops but I didn't think there was a technical reason why you couldn't continue doing it.

On retail versions of the OS there is a hard number set for activations. It's very small. 3 or 4 times before you have to start calling in and activating over the phone.

Retail, boxed versions. Not OEM or MSDN or whatever.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I was already in the IT field and supporting PCs when Windows 98 came out.

The lawsuit was because IE4 was integrated into Win98 so deeply that it was impossible to uninstall it. Yes, you could instal Netscape, but you couldn't use it as your default browser because Win98 forced you to use IE4.

This was the basis of the lawsuit that eventually saw MS un-embed IE from Win98 SE and offer an uninstall process for IE in Win98.

Ah I see. We're talking about different examples from different eras. The one I was mentioning was more recent... 6 months ago? A year ago?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Interesting that you mention the "buying software is more like renting it" thing. I'm using Windows XP inside a VM and every single time I changed something on that VM, I have to re-activate the OS. I just change the RAM setting from 1024 to 2048, for example, and had to reactivate Windows when I loaded it up. Since I know I can only do that an unknown number of times, I'm not looking forward to the day I go to increase the HD size, only to be told that I can no longer use my copy of Windows XP because it can't be activated any more.

I just changed my XP VPC image from 512 to 1024 to 2048 megs of RAM. No sign of activation.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Exactly. That's the mess that Windows has been in from the start. Without any way to regulate hardware (other than standards), mass driver support is just a huge headache.

I guess.. or they could have a an "OS X" certified hardware program, but actually test and enforce it

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Interesting that you mention the "buying software is more like renting it" thing. I'm using Windows XP inside a VM and every single time I changed something on that VM, I have to re-activate the OS. I just change the RAM setting from 1024 to 2048, for example, and had to reactivate Windows when I loaded it up. Since I know I can only do that an unknown number of times, I'm not looking forward to the day I go to increase the HD size, only to be told that I can no longer use my copy of Windows XP because it can't be activated any more.

Exactly.. Crap like that just angers real customers, and the pirates still pirate the software because they're willing to hack their BIOS and setup false authentication servers to pirate the stuff.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Overall, I'm still up in the air about whether I'd like to see Mac OS freed up or not. On one hand, it would be fun to see how much impact it would have on the overall landscape. On the other hand, I'm pretty terrified of the mess that would probably ensue from having to allow the same scale of hardware support that Windows has to.

I just am selfish and want to run OS X on my desktop.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I was already in the IT field and supporting PCs when Windows 98 came out.

The lawsuit was because IE4 was integrated into Win98 so deeply that it was impossible to uninstall it. Yes, you could instal Netscape, but you couldn't use it as your default browser because Win98 forced you to use IE4.

This was the basis of the lawsuit that eventually saw MS un-embed IE from Win98 SE and offer an uninstall process for IE in Win98.

Edit: I'm doing this from memory, btw. I'm not looking it up on the internet. This was back in 97, so it was at least 12 years ago. My memory of the exact details is obviously fuzzy, but I'm sure I have the gist right.

IE is a shell. The MSHTML control is always there. Many programs use it.

What does "uninstalling IE" mean? Yeah, you can remove the shell, but the MSHTML control is relied upon by so many applications these days, it's ludicrous to demand that it be removed. Or should everybody make their own CSS/HTML renderer?

And it was totally possible for another browser to be the default browser. But only a moron would use Netscape as the default, or even occasionally.

[Leon]

Windows 7 has been running great on my system since the 7100 (I think?) release from it's website.

It really is what vista should have been. Runs smoothly and I haven't had any noticeable problems at all.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I just changed my XP VPC image from 512 to 1024 to 2048 megs of RAM. No sign of activation.

I'm don't use VPC.

I did just upgrade the software that runs my vm. I didn't need to activate afterwards, and it was running fine. I just decided to bump the RAM to see what would happen, and that's when I got hit with another activation.

Obviously, bumping the RAM after the upgraded engine was installed caused a new hardware ID to be created, which caused Windows to run its activation process again...

The point, though, is that I paid for the OS. It pisses me off that MS treats everyone like a criminal and forces them to prove otherwise. How many people have gotten the message that they can't activate anymore, and had to go to the store to spend another $400 on a new copy of Windows... all because they re-installed it or changed their hardware too many times?

It's ironic that they do this to combat software piracy, yet the very practice itself just promotes more software piracy.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I'm don't use VPC.

I did just upgrade the software that runs my vm. I didn't need to activate afterwards, and it was running fine. I just decided to bump the RAM to see what would happen, and that's when I got hit with another activation.

Obviously, bumping the RAM after the upgraded engine was installed caused a new hardware ID to be created, which caused Windows to run its activation process again...

So the real issue is that you changed VM versions.

The point, though, is that I paid for the OS. It pisses me off that MS treats everyone like a criminal and forces them to prove otherwise. How many people have gotten the message that they can't activate anymore, and had to go to the store to spend another $400 on a new copy of Windows... all because they re-installed it or changed their hardware too many times?

There is no limit to Windows activation. If there is, please provide proof.

It's ironic that they do this to combat software piracy, yet the very practice itself just promotes more software piracy.

I look forward to the crack that allows OSX to be installed on Atom processors again.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Shazam

IE is a shell. The MSHTML control is always there. Many programs use it.

What does "uninstalling IE" mean? Yeah, you can remove the shell, but the MSHTML control is relied upon by so many applications these days, it's ludicrous to demand that it be removed. Or should everybody make their own CSS/HTML renderer?

And it was totally possible for another browser to be the default browser. But only a moron would use Netscape as the default, or even occasionally.

Huh?

I'm talking about 12 years ago. Not today. IE (before 4 came) sucked even worse than it does today. Yes, IE4 was better than Netscape 3 (not much better than Communicator though), but it didn't change the fact that I had to support office workstations whose users had been using Netscape 3, and were no longer able to because we upgraded them to Win98.

You can argue opinions all you want, but you can't tell me known history didn't actually happen.

Who cares about this anyway?