Jump to content
InsanelyMac Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fotpunk

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé
  1. Dell? A very long, very doubtful shot. HP? Never again. HP tried hardware licensing with the iPod, and it was a disaster precisely because of Apple's tight control. And Metrogirl is right-on, but I think OSx86 pirates are a bigger "blip" on Apple's radar ("blot" sounds so negative) despite being a tiny minority, because OSx86 pirates are: * Security testing for Leopard whether they realize it or not * Endowing on OS X some sort of cool "forbidden fruit" rep that subsequently raises interest among the general public about Apple (if people are taking the trouble to hack it, it must be good) - you can't buy that type of marketing * Going to be among the most knowledgable people able to opine on (hacked) OS X vs. Vista, and therefore the most influential people to sway others to switch (or not switch) operating systems
  2. fotpunk

    Apple Seeks (Poetic) Justice

    It's called a haiku Poems that don't have to rhyme So stop hating, dude Unit to Apple? I can't speak for dreness but Don't be quick to judge If you own Windows Should I call you a unit To Gates? That's not right I own a Mac too But I also own PCs The worst of both worlds!
  3. It may make sense to you, but it won't make to Apple. Once upon a time, Apple thought it could increase the company's value by licensing its hardware so that "everyone" could afford the "Apple experience." Instead, it lost money as its licensees made cheaper and more affordable boxes. It nearly destroyed the company. So by releasing OS X "for Everyone", it would promptly: 1. Destroy Apple's hardware sales, because who'd buy an Apple if you could get a PC for cheaper? Would you buy an Apple? Heck no... 2. Create a customer support nightmare as people call to complain why OS X doesn't work on a seemingly infinite number of pimp-my-PC configurations (Do you support my video card Apple? What about my ethernet card? No? Then you suck Apple! Wah!) 3. Awaken the beast that is Microsoft, who would summaraily create Vista software to disable OS X on any machine that has Vista installed, then threaten to destroy any PC vendor who dares ship OS X rather than Vista on its machines. Oh, and cancel all software development (i.e. Office) on the Mac. 4. Cause Apple to go bankrupt because of 1-3. So if you think OS X for everyone would make Apple and its shareholders happy … no way. EDIT: And I can tell you now that Apple would never give up its miniscule hardware market share just to make easy money on the OS … because of 2 and 3 above. It would rather build its hardware AND OS market share by keeping OS X on Apple computers.
  4. fotpunk

    Apple Seeks (Poetic) Justice

    Why is every PC Jill and Jack ga-ga over some new Tiger crack? I've got 10.4.5 Running perfect 'cause I Figured out you could … just buy a Mac! Seriously, may I make a guess why PCers still stuck with MS would hack, crack and steal an OS with appeal? So Vista can learn from … the best? OK, enough limericks for today. And I'm not PC/x86/crack bashing - just having some fun at Microsoft's (MS) expense, so don't get all bent out of shape. I just think it's funny all the crazy steps people are taking to get Tiger on their computers … is it really that awesome? I don't think so, and I own a Mac!
  5. fotpunk

    10.4.4 Security Broken

    OK, please please correct me if I'm wrong, but from a non-technical standpoint this 10.4.4 patch as it stands merely bypasses/disables some of the encrypted system elements of 10.4.4 and tricks the OS into using the already-decrypted elements of 10.4.3 instead? (I know the actual process is much more complex, but I'm trying to keep things simple). In other words, no one has yet decrypted any encrypted portions of 10.4.4 yet? Just disabled them? I know this is a lame-o question, but Steve Jobs wanted me to ask. EDIT: Oh, and to clarify, I know that some people have said that MAXUSS has "decrypted" some binaries in 10.4.4, but I'm wondering if they're just reworked 10.4.3 binaries. Because if they were truly decrypted, why wouldn't 10.4.4 be working as well as 10.4.3 then?
  6. fotpunk

    powermac prob

    To find all your G5 specs, blue Apple menu, upper left corner. Click on "About This Mac" then click the "More Info" button in the window. This should open up a complete system profile of the G5. <EDIT> Sorry, ignore what's above -- just noticed you didn't have a video card installed. You can open the case and look for a little strip of text on the bottom that lists processor speed, factory installed RAM, etc. The serial number should help you find the exact rev. (Seriously, call Apple and they'll tell you based on the serial number -- they did for an iBook that I didn't even own but was fixing up for a friend). As for troubleshooting the fans/processors, you'll need to download some developer tools from Apple (i.e. CHUD and/or "Processor" system extension) to turn on/off the processors. But you'll need the video card.
  7. fotpunk

    New "true" video ipod

    If I'm reading the rumors correctly, the click control will be "virtual" and activated by touching the video screen? A great design idea in theory … but the reality is that my iPod as it is gets dirty enough through active use. Touching the screen with my not-always-clean fingers isn't gonna help matters (imagine watching Lost on a TV screen full of smudge marks). I can see the lawsuits already: "Apple is being sued for not giving enough warning to users to not eat greasy foods while using their new iPods…"
  8. fotpunk

    OSx86 10.4.4 Leaked

    Don't worry, the pro market won't erode. Not in 2006 anyway. No serious designer is going to switch to a Power MacTel (much less an ordinary PC) until Adobe CS goes UniBin, even if it's in 2007 (the thought of touching up 500 MB Photoshop files using Rosetta scares the hell out of me personally). The audio/video wonks will have Final Cut Studio as a UniBin in March, and the math/science geeks write their own programs anyway, so they won't care. (Now will Apple sell many new G5s this year? Extremely doubtful, but that's another topic.) And as for your IMO, I agree with you -- but I'm guessing Apple's market share would have to reach … maybe 50% instead before Apple would consider porting OS X?
  9. fotpunk

    Apple: Beauty vs. People

    Apple is the dominant player in the mp3 player/mp3 legal download market (more than 70% market share I think) -- but I don't hear anyone cursing the iPod as evil (at least not yet ). So why would you think that Apple would be considered "evil" if it ever dominated the PC market? Besides, in your alternate universe people would be trying to figure out how to install Linux on their Macs. Windows would be those glass things in homes so you could see outside.
  10. Hope this isn't too off-topic, but I bought a first-gen Sony PlayStation way back in the day. Funny thing was, there was this swap trick that let you be able to play games from Japan, which Sony promptly disabled (to a certain extent) in its next-gen models. So the first-gen PlayStations were actually more "valuable" for a little while … until their defective CD laser drives crapped out. Actually, I think early adopters of OS systems usually put up with more headaches than early hardware adopters. So to all you Vista early adapters, best wishes...
  11. fotpunk

    Apple: Beauty vs. People

    > I guess what disappoints me is that Apple has such a great product, yet they forgot that part of the beauty > that was so attractive to the initial developers - the quality for the price. Sure, marketing is important, but >when the costs of it keep your product out of the hands of users, something should change. Huh? So you're saying that Apple should spend less money on marketing, so it can focus on making cheaper products with thinner profit margins? Based on your logic, a car company like Jaguar should spend less money on marketing so it can build and sell more Hyundai-type compacts affordable for the masses! An admirable idea, but it's corporate suicide. The bottom line is Apple is a brand name, like Nike or Coca-Cola. The brand name was worthless for years (despite having a strong core following) until the iPod came along. Now it's trendy, cool, blah blah blah and as a result it is one of the few PC makers that can get away with charging a premium for its computers. Why would Apple want to jeopardize that by turning into a mass-market cheap box maker like Dell? Effectively exchanging brand value for market share. I think it's safe to say that Apple doesn't want to be the next Dell (as long as Jobs is in charge), and that Apple actually likes the idea (from a marketing standpoint) that its products have some aura of exclusivity about them by not being "cheap" boxes and not in the hands of everyone (at least, not yet). (At the risk of going off-topic, this discussion reminds me of a story I read in a marketing book about a woman in New Mexico(?) who was having trouble selling her custom-made Indian art pieces. She kept marking them down and down in price, but no one bought them. She mentioned her plight to a marketing expert, who recommended that she mark UP the price by 200 percent (so that shoppers could see that the prices have gone up) and call them limited-edition pieces. The result was that her pieces began selling quickly; and that fact increased demand as a result! The story may be bogus, but the moral remains the same -- there will always be a segment of the population that will pay more for something perceived as premium.) Besides, I'm sure Apple's marketers would point to products such as the iPod shuffle, iBook and Mac Mini as "attempts" to contend that Apple is indeed targeting the "quality for the price" market. So this contention that Apple is currently abandoning the mass market by keeping its products pricier just doesn't wash with me. Sorry.
  12. Hey, everyone, don't hate the player, hate the game (or OS X, in this case). He actually has a good point. Putting an "online/offline" app in the Dock would make sense for those who are used to such a feature on the Windows side. Pressing it would disable any app (i.e. widgets, software update, etc.) from trying to connect automatically to the internet - instead of doing it the long way by turning off connections for everything. Perhaps someone's already come up with something along those lines?
  13. I'm not sure I'm understanding you 100% but it sounds like you are unhappy with OS X/Panther because you want to connect to the internet manually (i.e. control whether you're connected or not). Here's how to do it. 1. In the Apple Menu (the apple icon on the upper left corner of the screen), go to "System Preferences..." 2. Under Internet & Network, click Network 3. From the "Show" drop-down menu, select "Network Port Configurations" 4. Uncheck the connection you wish to disable 5. When you want to reconnect manually, repeat steps 1-4 but check the connection you want to enable in #4 And see, you didn't need a manual when there are so many people in this forum ready to help you out.
  14. I totally agree with Scothiam. There might be many people who WANT UniBin Adobe apps, but the people who NEED it and use it on a daily basis (meaning Adobe's big-bucks corporate customers) won't even consider a switch until the Mac Pros come out AND all the software bugs get ironed out. To put this in perspective, I work for a major publisher who didn't even switch to G5s/OS X until Panther came out, and then bought 100+ licenses of CS1 (that's right, not CS2, because of compatibility concerns). That's the type of money Adobe cares about. And from my personal experience as a graphic designer, I remember switching from 68000(?) to Power PC as well as from OS 9 to OS X - and the Adobe "experience" was buggy as hell both times. So it's not like I really want Adobe to rush out buggy products, either (which they will anyway, but at least the bugs won't be so bad? ) All the designers I know aren't switching to Intel until Adobe does, so if you already bought a new MacTel, er, good luck with that. It's not like Adobe promised UniBin apps in 2006, right?
  15. First off, excellent article. To answer your question, what now makes a Mac a Mac, it’s simple once you realize what the most important news REALLY is – it’s OS X 10.4.4. Not the Intel Macs. Let me explain: Apple cares about making money from hardware and software, but what it really really wants is to control the computer user interface. Apple seeks control by making the interface simple, secure and easy to use—and marketing that interface as cool and hip by capturing the techno-savvy first—ultimately making that interface the popular and preferred choice for consumers. Because once it controls the user interface, it can control which hardware (i.e. the iPod) and software (i.e. iTunes Music Store) you have to use—and more importantly, make money off both ends of the pipeline. Microsoft has the current monopoly of the computer user interface today with Windows. So understand that despite the (justifiable and nevertheless awesome) hubbub over the Intel Macs, it’s not what has Microsoft worried. It’s the fact that after five years of development, Apple actually has a competitor to XP and (eventually) Vista—and, more importantly, for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO COMPARE MAC AND PC INTERFACES HEAD TO HEAD on similarly equipped PCs. Once again, Apple seeks control of the interface by making it (OS X) simple, secure and easy to use—and marketing that interface as cool and hip by capturing the techno-savvy first. That’s where you all come in. By ultimately [k]racking OS X and installing on “non-sanctioned” PCs, you’ll be generating the type of buzz that Average Joe and Gramma Jill are going to hear/read in the media—after all, if tech-savvy people are resorting to illegal means to run OS X on their PCs, it must be something hot and hip, right? And it will be this tech-savvy group (you all) that will ignite, create and spread the “Windows vs. OS X” debate. Exactly what Steve Jobs has been dying to do for years. Of course, Apple will be pissed if you all wind up preferring Windows for some odd reason. Apple will also be pissed if you [k]rack OS X so well that Average Joe can figure out how to install on his “Dude It’s A Dell.” However, if you [k]rack OS X—but it remains TOO HARD (or too buggy) for Average Joe and Gramma Jill to install, Apple will live with that because when it comes to Joe’s and Jill’s PC-shopping time, they will choose the machine that makes it EASIEST to have both Windows and OS X (in case they can’t decide what they want). And that’s almost certainly an Apple: So here’s how the fight over user interface control plays out in the next year or so: * Apple likely owns much of the pre-Intel Mac-converted, they will buy Apple Intels * Apple will win over those who choose OS X in the Windows vs. OS X debate * Apple will win over those who are undecided over the Windows vs. OS X debate (or need Windows for business but prefer OS X); they will buy Apples to make it easier to dual boot * This dual boot possibility will be a key selling point in the education market (only one PC does it all!) * Apple will never own the bargain-basement PC consumer until a Mac Intel Mini arrives * Apple won’t make inroads in the business market until Apple can dominate the consumer market * Apple will never own the tech-savvy who can figure out how to dual boot effectively without an Apple Intel machine The net result is a small but important increase in Apple’s control of the user interface (as well as increased sales on the hardware end of the pipeline). And if Apple can take just 5% of the interface away from Microsoft’s OS market by 2007, it will be a $mashing $uccess for Apple. So Apple may not have been joking when it said “Introducing Longhorn”a while back with regard to OS X — it’s what makes a Mac a Mac, even on a PC.