Jump to content

Apple Patents WGA-styled Anti-Piracy System


REVENGE
 Share

68 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

This will probably be used for Apple's high-end software such as Final Cut Pro and Mac OS X Server. I don't think Apple wants to cause paying Mac OS X users headaches with such a draconian implementation.

 

I completely agree, this is probably be implemented in high-end softwares, not directly to OS X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all are jumping to conclusions too fast.

 

1) If Apple didn't want OS X to run on anything but a mac - it wouldn't. Example? Logic Pro 6. The 'unhackable' app. Nobody has figured it out. Apple has smart enough engineers to create an entirely hardware-reliant OS that would be simply unable to run without Apple hardware. It's completely possible. Leopard did not even introduce any real 'new' technologies as far as not running on Apple hardware and actually made it easier. Apple knows that the OSx86 community has certainly done more good than harm for Apple. A tiny demographic of geeks who love the Mac OS - almost (and I said almost, so don't criticize) everyone here would like one Mac or another, and a good chunk of us have purchased Apple computers after using OSx86.

 

2) Who says this is for the OS? This may just be an over-complex way to activate new Apple software, which would certainly do the company more good than harm. It may not cut down on piracy completely, but even making it more difficult is never a bad thing for the company. If y'all wanna whine and say 'aww I can't pirate my software anymore' then you can, but you can't defend their right to not put protection on their software. That's just logic, guys.

 

3) Chill. It's just computers. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like lostgame understands where I'm coming from. Apple will most likely use this patent, which it originally wrote in 2005, to copy-protect iPhone/iPod touch apps made available through iTunes, as suggested in THIS article. It'll be transparent to the user, like everything else sold from iTS, while helping independent 3rd party developers make a steady profit that would not be possible otherwise.

 

It really astonishes me how many people here on InsanelyMac, one of the top resources in Mac development, pioneered by great minds, know so little about Apple's policies/history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If y'all wanna whine and say 'aww I can't pirate my software anymore' then you can, but you can't defend their right to not put protection on their software. That's just logic, guys.

 

Who's pirating anything? I don't even have a Mac, yet, or Mac OS X running in Hackintosh, either. I've been very interested in going Mac and getting rid of Windows completely, but still using my beloved PCLinuxOS. My problem is with companies (MS) and organizations (RIAA, MPAA) assuming from the word 'go' that I'm a thief. I stole nothing. Why should I be treated as a thief? Why should I be considered "guilty until proven innocent"?

 

I think several user have voiced the same thing I have. I'm going to wait out getting a Mac. I was anticipating getting one once Christmas bills were paid. Now, I'm not so sure. I don't want to be stuck with a machine that the next OS for it will be full of Apple DRM. I guess I could still run Linux on it, but I'm chugging along very well with this $500 machine I built out of spare parts specifically to run Linux on.

 

Apple does some great things. They also tend to step all over their fanbase to protect themselves. I was a Mac user back in the days of System 7, OS8 and OS9. However, if they want to treat me as a criminal, they can have the Mac. Linux is getting better and better everyday and I don't have to put up with the {censored}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to wait out getting a Mac. I was anticipating getting one once Christmas bills were paid. Now, I'm not so sure. I don't want to be stuck with a machine that the next OS for it will be full of Apple DRM.

What DRM are you anticipating Apple will pull out of nowhere? The only DRM Apple implements is that which is necessary to get content onto the iTunes Store. They have over 2 million DRM-free songs, a growing number of DRM-free music videos, and DRM-free podcasts. The DRM on the remaining songs can be removed by simply burning them to a CD and importing them back into iTunes. Movies are probably going to remain DRMed, as they are from any source, except independent films. You're anger should be directed spicificly at the RIAA, MPAA, and M$, which pushes closed formats like WMV, a considerably more restrictive DRM model.

 

 

Apple does some great things. They also tend to step all over their fanbase to protect themselves.

Examples?

 

I was a Mac user back in the days of System 7, OS8 and OS9. However, if they want to treat me as a criminal, they can have the Mac. Linux is getting better and better everyday and I don't have to put up with the {censored}.

Then what was your point?

Also, Linux is not a single, unified entity, it's an armada of open-source contributers, which Apple has a symbiotic relationship with, which you can read about HERE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why dont you all chill and see how this goes. Apple isnt like M$. I dont think we are going to be seeing this anytime soon. Even if it is implemented it wont be for all OSX apps, only the Pro ones.

 

 

 

Also if you noticed this

The scheme Apple outlined in the patent application would rely on a cryptographic key generated prior to the hardware reaching the user.

 

 

This scheme requires a Hardware Cryptographic Key which current machines donot have. So this patent is nowhere near being implemented. So all of you chill out, relax and STOP Panicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What DRM are you anticipating Apple will pull out of nowhere? The only DRM Apple implements is that which is necessary to get content onto the iTunes Store. They have over 2 million DRM-free songs, a growing number of DRM-free music videos, and DRM-free podcasts. The DRM on the remaining songs can be removed by simply burning them to a CD and importing them back into iTunes. Movies are probably going to remain DRMed, as they are from any source, except independent films. You're anger should be directed spicificly at the RIAA, MPAA, and M$, which pushes closed formats like WMV, a considerably more restrictive DRM model.
Windows Genuine Advantage style copy protection, which is a form of DRM. This is what the discussion has been about. Haven't you kept up with the thread? I've applauded Apple for not having such nonsense thus far, but when and if it comes into the OS, you can count me out.
Examples?
Like how Apple tends to oudate your machine rather quickly. My last, and only Mac was built when System 7.1 shipped (1996), by OS 8.5 (1998) it was obsolete. I had an ADB Mac and 8.5 only ran on machines with USB mice and keyboards. OUCH! I can't tell you how expensive Macs used to be back then, compared to PC's. I spent about $4000 on my Mac when I bought it. This is the reason I left the Mac, after being an Apple II and subsequent Mac user for many years. Now, Leopard obsoletes anything older than the very last released G4 systems. I'm sure some have found workarounds, but it's not the point. Apple tries to push you into a new machine every couple of years. It's good for business, but not good for my wallet.Want another? How about Apple's recent move to stop the untying of iPods to iTunes? Now Linux and Unix users are put out until a workaround is available. It's not just Linux users. Not everyone that owns an iPod is a Mac user, and not everyone is a fan of iTunes.These are not gripes, but you asked for examples.
Also, Linux is not a single, unified entity, it's an armada of open-source contributers, which Apple has a symbiotic relationship with, which you can read about HERE.
Apple's supposed 'symbiotic relationship' is a joke. Besides being a thorn in Microsoft's side, what has it done for Linux? Quicktime and iTunes still aren't available, but there are 3rd party open source ways of getting around it. Apple has not given back anywhere near what it has taken from the open source community. I'm fully aware of how the BSD license allows this, so it's all fair. However, Apple's relationship with Linux and open source is about a joke. I'm not hating on them, because they are a commercial entity and they need to have a revenue stream and make money, but to say they have some relationship with open source is not very accurate.This is all good. I know there is choice out there. I can choose to ge ahead an make my next computer purchase a Mac, or build another Windows, or Linux, or BSD box or whatever (Microsoft is out!). However, I'm just voicing my opinion on the subject.
This scheme requires a Hardware Cryptographic Key which current machines donot have. So this patent is nowhere near being implemented. So all of you chill out, relax and STOP Panicking.
This sounds vaguely familiar... Palladium?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows Genuine Advantage style copy protection, which is a form of DRM. This is what the discussion has been about. Haven't you kept up with the thread? I've applauded Apple for not having such nonsense thus far, but when and if it comes into the OS, you can count me out.

If you had read my earlier comments, like I read yours and everyone else's, perhaps you'd understand where I was coming from. I'm not questioning your loyalty to Apple because I don't care, but if you really "applauded" Apple, you'd probably have a Mac right now. You try to compare Windows, Linux, and Macs as if they are the same kind of product, but they are not. Windows and Linux are both operating systems that run on other vendor's hardware, thus they are not directly comparable to Macs, which are cohesive hardware/software products. That's why they "Just Work."

 

Now, Leopard obsoletes anything older than the very last released G4 systems. I'm sure some have found workarounds, but it's not the point. Apple tries to push you into a new machine every couple of years.

So you're upset that Leopard doesn't run on 5 year old Macs? Try running Windows Vista on a some 1-2 year old PCs and see the results. Sure, you could run a simple Linux distro on older Macs and PCs, like I did with Puppy Linux on our old Compaq for years, but then you aren't getting the ease of use and features you'd get from Leopard. You can also install Tiger on G3s, which is a very capable OS.

 

Apple releases a new OS every couple of years that can run on Macs made in the past several years, so how does that "push me into a new machine?" I'm running Tiger right now and rather satisfied with it. I don't need to upgrade to Leopard, but I do want to because it's an outstanding OS that I can get for $70 as I'm a university employee. Even if I had to pay the full $130, it wouldn't be that bad compared to paying $300 for the only "decent" version of Vista, which is a horrendous OS.

 

How about Apple's recent move to stop the untying of iPods to iTunes? Now Linux and Unix users are put out until a workaround is available.

Could you be more specific? I have heard of no such problem. However, the iPod is not officially supported on Linux, mostly because, as I said before, Linux is not a unified platform. Sure, the open-source community is working to promote open standards, but there are a handful of different open-standards to choose from. There are hundreds of different Linux distros, supporting different standards, running different software, on a million hardware configurations. It would be quite a task to support all those different users.

 

 

It's not just Linux users. Not everyone that owns an iPod is a Mac user, and not everyone is a fan of iTunes.These are not gripes, but you asked for examples.

If those are not gripes, then why are you listing them as examples?

Obviously, not everyone who has an iPod is a Mac user. Windows users can use iTunes and the iPod can be used by certain Linux distros that support it. If you're not a fan of iTunes, there are alternative third-party apps that let you use the iPod without iTunes on every platform, though they won't match the ease of use iTunes delivers. Are you in particular not a fan, or do you have a poll that shows how many people like/dislike iTunes?

 

Apple's supposed 'symbiotic relationship' is a joke. Besides being a thorn in Microsoft's side, what has it done for Linux?

Did you read the article I linked to in my initial response? If you had, you wouldn't be asking me this question a second time. HERE it is again. If you're not willing to read it because you want to feel "right," then I don't think we can continue this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of yous are letting Apple Pwn j00z, lol.

No need to get upset, or worry wow.

My thought on this is the fight for this thing is always a see saw battle.

Company tries to come out with a solution, then it gets cracked/bypassed usually.

IMO OSX86scene figured out how to make osx86 run on pc hardware, same will happen with WGA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had read my earlier comments, like I read yours and everyone else's, perhaps you'd understand where I was coming from. I'm not questioning your loyalty to Apple because I don't care, but if you really "applauded" Apple, you'd probably have a Mac right now. You try to compare Windows, Linux, and Macs as if they are the same kind of product, but they are not. Windows and Linux are both operating systems that run on other vendor's hardware, thus they are not directly comparable to Macs, which are cohesive hardware/software products. That's why they "Just Work."

 

Wrong. I applaud the Mac, but I'm not running it because of what had happened with the afformentioned obsoleting of an expensive Mac. I just couldn't afford to keep buying them at the expensive prices they were, and be obsoleted like that. I grudgingly moved to Windows, only to shortly after find Linux, where I've steadily moved toward since. I still have a healthy respect for Apple, but I'm no longer absolutely in love with the company as I once was.

 

I'm comparing OS to OS to OS. I'm not talking stability or setup issues. Running on the vastly different hardware configurations may cause stability issues with those other OS's...well Windows anyway... and setup problems in Linux, but that has nothing to do with the discussion of possible WGA type of DRM in Mac OS X. You're trying to move into another territory with the discussion that has nothing to do with the original argument. Why are you trying to change the subject?

 

So you're upset that Leopard doesn't run on 5 year old Macs? Try running Windows Vista on a some 1-2 year old PCs and see the results. Sure, you could run a simple Linux distro on older Macs and PCs, like I did with Puppy Linux on our old Compaq for years, but then you aren't getting the ease of use and features you'd get from Leopard. You can also install Tiger on G3s, which is a very capable OS.

 

Wrong again. I'm not upset about it. You asked for examples and I gave them. The only time I was upset is when I shelled out big bucks for a rather high-end Mac and it was outdated within a little more than 2 years. That was it for me, at the time. I bought high-end to make it last, so that it wouldn't seem to be so slow as it aged, compared to a Performa, at that time. However, Apple's move to USB only support rendered my Mac un-upgradable.

 

Apple releases a new OS every couple of years that can run on Macs made in the past several years, so how does that "push me into a new machine?" I'm running Tiger right now and rather satisfied with it. I don't need to upgrade to Leopard, but I do want to because it's an outstanding OS that I can get for $70 as I'm a university employee. Even if I had to pay the full $130, it wouldn't be that bad compared to paying $300 for the only "decent" version of Vista, which is a horrendous OS.

 

I agree with the Vista comment. But, FreeBSD works fine on much older machines. Being that Mac OS X is based on a FreeBSD core with it's own kernel, why such heavy demands on the CPU? I'm running an Athlon XP 2800+ machine, that I know isn't as fast as many G4's, and I've run FreeBSD on it with KDE and full 3D graphics just fine - and KDE is a resource hog.

 

Apple has a history of outmoding your machine. Sure, you could run an older OS, but at some point, the software also stops working on that older OS.

 

Could you be more specific? I have heard of no such problem. However, the iPod is not officially supported on Linux, mostly because, as I said before, Linux is not a unified platform. Sure, the open-source community is working to promote open standards, but there are a handful of different open-standards to choose from. There are hundreds of different Linux distros, supporting different standards, running different software, on a million hardware configurations. It would be quite a task to support all those different users.

 

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/14/new-i...reengineer.html

 

Is that specific enough?

 

What's so not unified? Do you even know anything about Linux? Any application that can run on one Linux distro, can also run on another. There are some things that won't, but that's for different reasons. For instance, Mandriva runs URPMI and a GUI frontend for it called RPMDrake. You can't run that in Ubuntu because it uses .deb packages instead of .rpm packages and URPMI is written for .rpm packages. However, I can run Apt with a Synaptic GUI in either Ubuntu or Mandriva. Other than the few occurrences of things like that, all software that runs in one distro runs in all the others. Things such as multimedia, internet connectivity, and anything else that has nothing do do with system maintenance runs in all Linux distros. It's only in system maintenence areas that distros differ. If I fire up Ubuntu with a KDE desktop, its the pretty much the same as if I fired up Suse with a KDE desktop. I can configure 'sudo' to work in Suse just as it does in Ubuntu. I can even run Apt and Synaptic for package management in both. There still will be some fundemental differences, but again, it's only in the administration area that the differ. Apple releasing Quicktime and iTunes for Linux would not be affected by any differences in any distros.

 

If those are not gripes, then why are you listing them as examples?

Obviously, not everyone who has an iPod is a Mac user. Windows users can use iTunes and the iPod can be used by certain Linux distros that support it. If you're not a fan of iTunes, there are alternative third-party apps that let you use the iPod without iTunes on every platform, though they won't match the ease of use iTunes delivers. Are you in particular not a fan, or do you have a poll that shows how many people like/dislike iTunes?

 

Typical poor debating skills... I say that 'not everyone likes iTunes' and you say 'do you have a poll to support this?'. I'm not debating how great iTunes is. I have it on my Windows machine. I wish it was on my Linux machine. Read the above link to see what I was talking about. Apple purposely changed the way the new iPod's sync up with iTunes and rendered all other 3rd party apps that sync up useless. Now, workarounds are coming out, but the fact that Apple purposely did this shows how Apple uses predatorial tactics to preserve it's own revenue streams at the cost of convenience to the end users.

 

Did you read the article I linked to in my initial response? If you had, you wouldn't be asking me this question a second time. HERE it is again. If you're not willing to read it because you want to feel "right," then I don't think we can continue this discussion.

 

I read it. Look... This isn't a war, so why are you trying to make it one? I simply stated the I'll wait to figure out whether or not I'll go back to the Mac or not until I hear some more about this WGA-like DRM thing Apple has going on. So what's your beef? Honestly, I shouldn't have expected anything less in a pro-Apple forum, as diehards have always looked at the company through rose colored glasses... I know, because I was once one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. I applaud the Mac, but I'm not running it because of what had happened with the afformentioned obsoleting of an expensive Mac. I just couldn't afford to keep buying them at the expensive prices they were, and be obsoleted like that. I grudgingly moved to Windows, only to shortly after find Linux, where I've steadily moved toward since. I still have a healthy respect for Apple, but I'm no longer absolutely in love with the company as I once was.

Wrong? What was "right" or "wrong" about what I said? If you really "applauded" Apple, aka, if you really liked their products, you would probably have one right now. That wasn't a right/wrong question, it was a logical statement.

 

Apple did not obsolete your Mac. If you still had it today, it would be usable, though very slow obviously compared to any current Mac or PC. The day the new Mac OS launched, did your "high-end" Mac suddenly not boot up, refused to run your programs, or explode? Your use of the word obsolete should really be reconsidered.

 

I'm comparing OS to OS to OS. I'm not talking stability or setup issues. Running on the vastly different hardware configurations may cause stability issues with those other OS's...well Windows anyway... and setup problems in Linux, but that has nothing to do with the discussion of possible WGA type of DRM in Mac OS X. You're trying to move into another territory with the discussion that has nothing to do with the original argument. Why are you trying to change the subject?

You just made my point. You cannot compare OS to OS to OS. No, I don't mean you can't try, I'm saying doing so doesn't make sense. You bring up "stability" and "setup issues." Are you saying these things are independent from the OS? You have those problems because Linux (which is not a unified entity) and the hardware (made by a separate company) are not made by the same company. Thus, you can't compare that to a Mac, which is built by Apple and outfitted by an Apple-made OS.

 

I'm not changing the subject, I'm addressing issues brought up in your earlier comments.

 

 

Wrong again. I'm not upset about it. You asked for examples and I gave them. The only time I was upset is when I shelled out big bucks for a rather high-end Mac and it was outdated within a little more than 2 years. That was it for me, at the time. I bought high-end to make it last, so that it wouldn't seem to be so slow as it aged, compared to a Performa, at that time. However, Apple's move to USB only support rendered my Mac un-upgradable.

Alright, two things here.

 

First, whether you are actually upset about Leopard not supporting 5-year old Macs is beside the point. You've stated you think Apple "steps all over its fans" and that you were upset about not being able to upgrade to the new Mac OS on your older Mac, thus this has nothing to do with me being right or wrong.

 

That brings me to the second thing, which proves an earlier point I made. The new Mac OS made your old Mac "un-upgradeable," as you say, rather than "obsolete." So, I think I'll believe you meant the former.

 

I agree with the Vista comment. But, FreeBSD works fine on much older machines. Being that Mac OS X is based on a FreeBSD core with it's own kernel, why such heavy demands on the CPU?

You think Apple only ends support for 5-year old Macs because of its tax on the CPU? Apple ends support for old Macs that can't handle Leopard effectively and also so to keep legacy-wear at a minimum. One of the reasons Windows is so insecure and slow is because of its dependence on legacy wear.

 

However, Apple does have a vested interest in supporting 4-year old Macs because G4s make up around 70% of its installed base compared to the 25% made up of the Intel Macs.

 

 

Apple has a history of outmoding your machine. Sure, you could run an older OS, but at some point, the software also stops working on that older OS.

Not sure what you mean by "outmoding" my machine. The software on the G3 tower at the campus lab I've worked at for the past three summers has not "stopped working." Could you clarify what you're talking about?

 

Sure, though that is a sensational article that proves no where that Apple did anything wrong. Apple does not officially support Linux, thus you shouldn't have expected it to work anyway. The only reason you've been able to is because of workarounds created by the open-source community. I'm sure, soon enough, they'll have another workaround that solves the problem.

 

What's so not unified? Do you even know anything about Linux?

I know enough about Linux and the open-source community to know that they promote open-standards which benefit everyone, every business. They are helping destroy the monopoly M$ has by using these interoperable standards that work on all OSs, rather than closed standards that lock consumers into Windows. However, Linux is, as I've said multiple times, an amalgamation of groups, not one, unified company like M$ or Apple. Apple can't decide to support only one Linux distro or the shills would be up in arms. There are tons of different distros running in different ways (KDE vs GNOME for example) that Apple could support, but that would take up resources and time, when there are more important matters to deal with. The main problem would be the million different hardware configurations that Apple would have to code for. With that said, Apple is in much the same place as Linux, Unix, and FreeBSD and has strong ties with them.

 

 

Typical poor debating skills... I say that 'not everyone likes iTunes' and you say 'do you have a poll to support this?'. I'm not debating how great iTunes is. I have it on my Windows machine. I wish it was on my Linux machine. Read the above link to see what I was talking about. Apple purposely changed the way iPod's sync up with the new iPods and rendered all other 3rd party apps that sync up useless. Now, workarounds are coming out, but the fact that Apple purposely did this shows how Apple uses predatorial tactics to preserve it's own revenue streams at the cost of convenience to the end users.

I read it. Look... This isn't a war, so why are you trying to make it one? I simply stated the I'll wait to figure out whether or not I'll go back to the Mac or not until I hear some more about this WGA-like DRM thing Apple has going on. So what's your beef? Honestly, I shouldn't have expected anything less in a pro-Apple forum, as diehards have always looked at the company through rose colored glasses... I know, because I was once one of them.

 

The way you're talking to me, saying I'm wrong, criticizing my "debating skills," etc. gives me the feeling you have no interest in what we are discussing, but rather you just want to feel superior or right. I'm sorry if you've been fed so much misinformation about Apple (which most people have) that you're not interested in questioning your sources and/or yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, to be realistic I can't see Apple doing this to their desktop OS X, they will have to use some kind of system to stop no payers. It's not Apple's style at all to do this to OS X ,after all they backed off the DRM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong? What was "right" or "wrong" about what I said? If you really "applauded" Apple, aka, if you really liked their products, you would probably have one right now. That wasn't a right/wrong question, it was a logical statement.Apple did not obsolete your Mac. If you still had it today, it would be usable, though very slow obviously compared to any current Mac or PC. The day the new Mac OS launched, did your "high-end" Mac suddenly not boot up, refused to run your programs, or explode? Your use of the word obsolete should really be reconsidered.
Actually, I do still have it, though it's boxed up and hasn't been booted up in years. By obsolete, I mean you can no longer upgrade the machine. Sure, if I still had my Apple IIGS I could boot it up and use it. But is it obsolete? Well, Apple no longer supports it, there hasn't been an upgrade for GS/OS since System 6.2 (somewhere around 1995), and the filetypes used probably aren't even supported by Mac OS any longer. It's obsolete. But your definition of not being obsolete means I can still boot it up and it'll run, so I guess it isn't? I'm pretty sure it's obsolete.My Mac used NuBus cards, Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) for keyboard and mouse connectivity, and SCSI for all the drives in it and external devices like scanners. I can't find any more NuBus cards available, nor mice and keyboards for the ADB, nor SCSI flatbed scanners to replace my old one, nor can I load any version of OS X, or run any more recent software - that's definitely obsolete.However, my definition of obsolete is when you can no longer upgrade the OS, and all the new software requires a version newer than you can possibly run. That day is coming soon for most G4's. They can't load Leopard, and in about 1 year's time, pretty much all Mac software will require Leopard. That's when it will be obsolete.
You just made my point. You cannot compare OS to OS to OS. No, I don't mean you can't try, I'm saying doing so doesn't make sense. You bring up "stability" and "setup issues." Are you saying these things are independent from the OS? You have those problems because Linux (which is not a unified entity) and the hardware (made by a separate company) are not made by the same company. Thus, you can't compare that to a Mac, which is built by Apple and outfitted by an Apple-made OS.I'm not changing the subject, I'm addressing issues brought up in your earlier comments.
I'm saying that the differences you point out only pertain to stability and setup issues. They have nothing to do with comparing how OS's function and behave, which is something that can be compared. You mean that I can't compare Mac OS multimedia and Windows multimedia because Apple's OS is tied to the hardware and Windows isn't? Bull! What has that got to do with anything?
Alright, two things here. First, whether you are actually upset about Leopard not supporting 5-year old Macs is beside the point. You've stated you think Apple "steps all over its fans" and that you were upset about not being able to upgrade to the new Mac OS on your older Mac, thus this has nothing to do with me being right or wrong. That brings me to the second thing, which proves an earlier point I made. The new Mac OS made your old Mac "un-upgradeable," as you say, rather than "obsolete." So, I think I'll believe you meant the former.
See my definition of obsolete above...
You think Apple only ends support for 5-year old Macs because of its tax on the CPU? Apple ends support for old Macs that can't handle Leopard effectively and also so to keep legacy-wear at a minimum. One of the reasons Windows is so insecure and slow is because of its dependence on legacy wear.
Hmmm... Linux runs on pretty old machines very effectively. It's based upon a very similar base (Linux is somewhat of a Unix clone). It also flies on my Athlon 64 X2 4800+ machine. Yet, it has Compiz-Fusion that makes good use of OpenGL and provides a multitude of elaborate eye candy. However, I can get all of that to work on my Athlon XP 2800+ machine very nicely. Now, Linux supports an incredible amount of hardware, without any OEM drivers for the most part, and all the drivers ship with it. This includes support for most modern hardware and even support for some pretty obscure stuff and very old stuff. However, it fits on my hard drive, with KDE installed only, in less than 3GB of hard disk space. Adding XFCE and Gnome, it takes up around 4.5 GB of hard disk space. That's the OS, all necessary drivers, and tons of applications, including some redundancy because of the multiple environments I have loaded.Now, tell me, whith the limited amount of hardware Mac OS X has to support, since it only supports Apple hardware, what legacy hardware slows the machine down? I'll put my Linux distro against Mac OS X for speed any day. However, it does all of the above. What legacy is bloating the OS this much?I'm not here to compare how lean Linux is to how much resources OS X takes, but just that you claim they chop off the legacy machines to keep it from slowing down. Yet, Linux can support an incredible amount of legacy equipment, and lots of new stuff, yet run very fast and take up very little hard drive space. FreeBSD does the same thing, but it doesn't have near the hardware support Linux does, and yet, OS X is based upon it. I think your argument doesn't hold water.As far as legacy affecting security...how? Windows is insecure for 3 main reasons: Microsoft has kept backdoors open for their own use, and people have found them and exploited them; Microsoft is slow to fix problems; and being they have about 90% of the PC market, they're a big target. Both Mac and Linux enjoy security through obscurity. If you were a virus/worm/trojan writer, which OS would you target? Somthing that has single digit marketshare or something that will allow you to do widespread catostrophic damage? The answer is simple. There's no doubt that the Unix model of user/root accounts definitely makes things far more secure, but nothing is foolproof. Now, again, how does legacy hardware affect security? It doesn't....I'm not saying Apple ends support because of the tax on the CPU. Heck, my machine wasn't old enough to be slowed down that much. They simply dropped support for ADB and required USB only. It was that simple. Now, I could have added a USB NuBus card, and they were available at the time, and upgraded my keyboard and mouse, but the point was that Apple stopped supporting all ADB Macs with new versions of Mac OS and that was that. It was a 2 year old machine...
However, Apple does have a vested interest in supporting 4-year old Macs because G4s make up around 70% of its installed base compared to the 25% made up of the Intel Macs.
Apple has a vested interest in making those 70% upgrade to newer machines (ching..ching...). Apple is mainly a hardware company first, and a software company second. They go hand and hand as far as Apple is concerned. However, Apple mostly makes money on the sale of hardware. They have a vested interest in keeping you buying new product, not holding on to older product.
Not sure what you mean by "outmoding" my machine. The software on the G3 tower at the campus lab I've worked at for the past three summers has not "stopped working." Could you clarify what you're talking about?
Again, see the above definition for obsolete...
Sure, though that is a sensational article that proves no where that Apple did anything wrong. Apple does not officially support Linux, thus you shouldn't have expected it to work anyway. The only reason you've been able to is because of workarounds created by the open-source community. I'm sure, soon enough, they'll have another workaround that solves the problem.
Okay... So what reason did Apple have for the change? It simply broke all 3rd party apps for syncing up with the iPod. There was no other reason for the change. It's plain as day. Sure, the gifted open-source programmers will find a way, and it's already in the works, but Apple tried, just as it tried to brick unlocked iPhones (which I don't blame them for). I don't care if Apple doesn't support Linux. Linux never asked for support. They simply tried to block the use of Linux apps from working with iPod. Without hooking iPod's up to iTunes, they can't make a pitch to get you to buy stuff on iTunes. Therefore, they don't want it to work with any other apps. Again, they walked on their customer base to protect their revenue stream... It's not like those Linux users didn't buy their iPods. It's not like they were asking for Apple support. They got their support 3rd party and Apple didn't like it.
I know enough about Linux and the open-source community to know that they promote open-standards which benefit everyone, every business. They are helping destroy the monopoly M$ has by using these interoperable standards that work on all OSs, rather than closed standards that lock consumers into Windows. However, Linux is, as I've said multiple times, an amalgamation of groups, not one, unified company like M$ or Apple. Apple can't decide to support only one Linux distro or the shills would be up in arms. There are tons of different distros running in different ways (KDE vs GNOME for example) that Apple could support, but that would take up resources and time, when there are more important matters to deal with. The main problem would be the million different hardware configurations that Apple would have to code for. With that said, Apple is in much the same place as Linux, Unix, and FreeBSD and has strong ties with them.
First, KDE is not a distro, nor is Gnome. They are X-Windows windowing environments the same way XFCE and Fluxbox are. On top of that, they have nothing to do with Apple not providing Quicktime or iTunes for Linux. Amarok runs on all Linux distros and is a KDE application. You can run Gnome, XFCE, or whatever and fire up Amarok. It loads the appropriate KDE libraries it needs, which must be installed as dependencies (automatic these days), and works inside another windowing environment rather seemlessly. The same way with The Gimp. If you're running KDE and fire up The Gimp, which is a GTK/Gnome app, it opens the appropriate libraries and works. It doesn't launch Gnome in order to run. It simply runs in a normal fashion no matter if it's running in Debian, Ubuntu, Suse, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, Puppy, Fedora, Slackware, Gentoo, LFS, or whatever other distro your install it in. It doesn't matter.Quicktime and iTunes can be written as GTK/Gnome apps, standard X-Window apps (like Adobe Acrobat is), or Qt/KDE apps. They'll still work on any Linux environment so long as the minimum dependencies are installed. So, again, what's the problem?Now the hardware issue... What hardware does a Quicktime or iTunes app need to support? Hardware support is done on the OS level, not by a multimedia application. The only hardware Apple would have to support is their own iPod in iTunes. That's it. For Quicktime it only needs to provide the codecs. I can use MPlayer or Kaffeine to actually watch the stuff.The "strong ties" Apple supposedly has with Linux and Unix sure aren't felt on the other side... I know because I'm there in the trenches with this stuff. Apple uses Unix as a foundation, but it gives back little. Sure, it's open sourced some of its software, but it's more for its own benefit - not the benefit of the open source community.
The way you're talking to me, saying I'm wrong, criticizing my "debating skills," etc. gives me the feeling you have no interest in what we are discussing, but rather you just want to feel superior or right. I'm sorry if you've been fed so much misinformation about Apple (which most people have) that you're not interested in questioning your sources and/or yourself.
You're 'wrong' because you made incorrect assumptions about me. Your debating skills have caused you to move off on tangents and not addressing the issue at hand, which was merely Windows Genuine Advantage-like copy protection schemes and Apple's patenting of the technology. Now, all this concern may well be over nothing. However, as I've expressed, I'm going to wait and see what happens. In your defense of Apple, you've moved the subject into other areas. I've not been fed any misinformation at all. I don't need sources to make a comment like "not everyone likes iTunes". Just visit a pro-Microsoft forum and ask them what they think of iTunes. I'm quite sure 'not everyone likes iTunes'...
Yep, to be realistic I can't see Apple doing this to their desktop OS X, they will have to use some kind of system to stop no payers. It's not Apple's style at all to do this to OS X ,after all they backed off the DRM.
Yes, I doubt it too. However, Jobs pitched for DRM-free music, but aren't both Disney and Pixar movies still using DRM? He's talking out of both sides of his mouth...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so too. I can see Hackintosh actually being good for Apple. After all, it's not quite as easy to install as it is on a real Mac, and results vary for most. Therefore, Hackintosh users could possibly become real Mac owners. Also, some of the Hackintosh owners are also buying iLife, iWork, and other Apple software as well as iPods and the iPhone. There not just happy that they got the OS running. They're buying products for it like they would any other platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I do still have it, though it's boxed up and hasn't been booted up in years. By obsolete, I mean you can no longer upgrade the machine. Sure, if I still had my Apple IIGS I could boot it up and use it. But is it obsolete? Well, Apple no longer supports it, there hasn't been an upgrade for GS/OS since System 6.2 (somewhere around 1995), and the filetypes used probably aren't even supported by Mac OS any longer. It's obsolete. But your definition of not being obsolete means I can still boot it up and it'll run, so I guess it isn't? I'm pretty sure it's obsolete.My Mac used NuBus cards, Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) for keyboard and mouse connectivity, and SCSI for all the drives in it and external devices like scanners. I can't find any more NuBus cards available, nor mice and keyboards for the ADB, nor SCSI flatbed scanners to replace my old one, nor can I load any version of OS X, or run any more recent software - that's definitely obsolete.However, my definition of obsolete is when you can no longer upgrade the OS, and all the new software requires a version newer than you can possibly run.
and
Heck, my machine wasn't old enough to be slowed down that much. They simply dropped support for ADB and required USB only. It was that simple. Now, I could have added a USB NuBus card, and they were available at the time, and upgraded my keyboard and mouse, but the point was that Apple stopped supporting all ADB Macs with new versions of Mac OS and that was that. It was a 2 year old machine...

Ah, so you could have installed a USB NuBus card and grabbed a new keyboard and mouse, which would have let you run the new Mac OS, you simply chose not to because...why?

 

I've heard that argument made before, just about more recent Macs. I remember hearing someone try to say Leopard doesn't support two year old Mac minis, which sounded crazy. When it came down to it, they were saying that because those two year old minis didn't come with 1GB standard, but rather 512MB, that they would require a RAM upgrade of an extra 512MB. Give me a break.

 

That day is coming soon for most G4's. They can't load Leopard, and in about 1 year's time, pretty much all Mac software will require Leopard. That's when it will be obsolete.

First, do you have proof that "that day" is coming soon for G4s? Oh sure, Apple will drop support at some point, but soon? How do you know all Mac software, including the thousands of third party developers, will just abandon Tiger? Did that happen to Panther when Tiger came out? Also, even if Apple abandoned all support of the Macs running Tiger (G3 to Intel), they would not be obsolete. They'd still have third parties. And even if they lost them, they'd still have the programs they do now, which have file formats compatible with Leopard.

 

I'm saying that the differences you point out only pertain to stability and setup issues. They have nothing to do with comparing how OS's function and behave, which is something that can be compared.

Yes, they do. The OS has to be written to include software/drivers to support the hardware. When said software/drivers are not included, you have stability/setup issues.

You mean that I can't compare Mac OS multimedia and Windows multimedia because Apple's OS is tied to the hardware and Windows isn't? Bull! What has that got to do with anything?

First, I didn't say you couldn't compare Windows multimedia programs with Apple's multimedia suite. Those are programs that can be compared. However, simply comparing Windows to Mac OS X is pointless because Windows can run very different depending on the hardware of the machine its running on. While you could try to say the same thing about Macs, you'd only be slightly correct because Apple's OS and hardware are made to work as one by Apple.

 

Hmmm... Linux runs on pretty old machines very effectively. It's based upon a very similar base (Linux is somewhat of a Unix clone). It also flies on my Athlon 64 X2 4800+ machine. Yet, it has Compiz-Fusion that makes good use of OpenGL and provides a multitude of elaborate eye candy. However, I can get all of that to work on my Athlon XP 2800+ machine very nicely.

Wait, are you saying your Athlon 64 X2 4800+ machine is old!? That's only about two years old. Sure, you can run Compiz on that. Good luck trying to run it on our Compaq Pissario from 2000. That's old. Puppy linux worked great, but it looked like Win95 and is not comparable to Leopard, or Tiger, or even Panther.

 

Now, Linux supports an incredible amount of hardware, without any OEM drivers for the most part, and all the drivers ship with it. This includes support for most modern hardware and even support for some pretty obscure stuff and very old stuff. However, it fits on my hard drive, with KDE installed only, in less than 3GB of hard disk space. Adding XFCE and Gnome, it takes up around 4.5 GB of hard disk space. That's the OS, all necessary drivers, and tons of applications, including some redundancy because of the multiple environments I have loaded.

I wouldn't dispute any of the above comment. I know Linux can run on just about anything and it takes up very little space. If it were as user friendly as Mac OS X is for me, it'd be a hard choice. Up until recently, I was running Ubuntu 7.10 on a crummy Dell Optiplex we got from family.

 

Now, tell me, whith the limited amount of hardware Mac OS X has to support, since it only supports Apple hardware, what legacy hardware slows the machine down? I'll put my Linux distro against Mac OS X for speed any day. However, it does all of the above. What legacy is bloating the OS this much?

Obviously, support for G3 or older, a.k.a. 5-year old Macs, would have required writing support for them. Those are legacy systems because they lack the necessary hardware to effectively run Leopard. There is very little legacy support in Mac OS X, that's my point. Don't try to look for it because there isn't much there.

 

You can read about the Mac's past legacy problems HERE and read about Windows Vista development challenges (including legacyware) HERE.

 

Windows is insecure for 3 main reasons: Microsoft has kept backdoors open for their own use, and people have found them and exploited them; Microsoft is slow to fix problems; and being they have about 90% of the PC market, they're a big target. Both Mac and Linux enjoy security through obscurity. If you were a virus/worm/trojan writer, which OS would you target? Somthing that has single digit marketshare or something that will allow you to do widespread catostrophic damage? The answer is simple. There's no doubt that the Unix model of user/root accounts definitely makes things far more secure, but nothing is foolproof.

Security through obscurity is only partially true. Go to THIS article and scroll down to the heading "Security by Obscurity." The rest of the article is informative as well.

 

Apple has a vested interest in making those 70% upgrade to newer machines (ching..ching...). Apple is mainly a hardware company first, and a software company second. They go hand and hand as far as Apple is concerned. However, Apple mostly makes money on the sale of hardware. They have a vested interest in keeping you buying new product, not holding on to older product.

All their hardware sells with their software, so for every hardware sale, they also make a software profit. Apple would like those G4 users to upgrade to Leopard, but they don't need the G4 users to upgrade to new hardware to do it. That's why Leopard has G4 support.

 

I don't care if Apple doesn't support Linux. Linux never asked for support.

Well, I guess that discussion is solved, especially considering Apple never officially supported Linux.

 

They simply tried to block the use of Linux apps from working with iPod. Without hooking iPod's up to iTunes, they can't make a pitch to get you to buy stuff on iTunes. Therefore, they don't want it to work with any other apps.

Oh, I thought we were done with this. iTunes doesn't "pitch" the iTunes store at it's users. You can use an iPod with iTunes and never look at iTS. Most of the stuff on people's iPods is not bought from the iTunes Store.

 

You really don't know why the iPod no longer works with Linux third party software, but rather you're just making assumptions as if Apple is nothing but a money-hungary, anti-competitive company like Microsoft.

 

First, KDE is not a distro, nor is Gnome. They are X-Windows windowing environments the same way XFCE and Fluxbox are.

You honestly think I don't know that? I know KDE and GNOME are windowing environments. If you read my post, I said

"There are tons of different distros running in different ways (KDE vs GNOME for example) that Apple could support, but that would take up resources and time, when there are more important matters to deal with."

 

On top of that, they have nothing to do with Apple not providing Quicktime or iTunes for Linux. Amarok runs on all Linux distros and is a KDE application. You can run Gnome, XFCE, or whatever and fire up Amarok. It loads the appropriate KDE libraries it needs, which must be installed as dependencies (automatic these days), and works inside another windowing environment rather seemlessly.

You speak about programs loading different libraries for different windowing environment, which is something Apple would have to code for in order for iTunes to run effectively. I think another reason there's no iTunes for Linux (among the other reasons I stated in my earlier posts) is the miniscule Linux home market. That's not a put down, just a simple fact. However, once more hardware vendors begin supporting Linux, which is inevitable since Linux is so much easier to use, more secure, and free compared to Windowz. Same thing with Apple not yet supporting ODF in iWork. ODF is used so little because it's so new, there's really no reason to support it right now. Apple doesn't have Microsoft's money to just do whatever, they have more important objectives in mind. Like the iPhone SDK, for instance.

 

The "strong ties" Apple supposedly has with Linux and Unix sure aren't felt on the other side... I know because I'm there in the trenches with this stuff. Apple uses Unix as a foundation, but it gives back little. Sure, it's open sourced some of its software, but it's more for its own benefit - not the benefit of the open source community.

Did you read the article I linked to? Now compare Mac OS X, the highest installed Unix-based OS, to M$, which generally describes Linux as either communist or a cancer. HERE is the article if you care to read it.

 

You're 'wrong' because you made incorrect assumptions about me.

Examples? And what do you mean by 'wrong?' Is that similar to wrong or "wrong?"

 

Your debating skills have caused you to move off on tangents and not addressing the issue at hand, which was merely Windows Genuine Advantage-like copy protection schemes and Apple's patenting of the technology.

Oh, so because we disagree, I'm the one going off on "tangents?" I think it's hard to express emotion online, even with emoticons. I haven't been screaming my opinions, I've been stating them. I haven't called you wrong and or made any similar personal attacks. I'm not looking for consensus here.

 

Now, all this concern may well be over nothing. However, as I've expressed, I'm going to wait and see what happens.

I was never disputing your right to wait and see how the patent is used. I did, however, link to THIS article which explains what the patent actually says and its benign usage.

 

In your defense of Apple, you've moved the subject into other areas. I've not been fed any misinformation at all. I don't need sources to make a comment like "not everyone likes iTunes".

I think, to put it diplomatically, we have "moved" the subject into other areas.

Now, did I say you needed a source? No, I asked if you had any polls that state how many people like/dislike iTunes. I know not everyone like iTunes. I wondered how many.

 

Just visit a pro-Microsoft forum and ask them what they think of iTunes. I'm quite sure 'not everyone likes iTunes'...

 

Why would I visit some Microsoft-biased forum and ask around? There are people here that don't like iTunes. I'm sure I can find them anywhere. I'm not arguing that people don't like iTunes. That's a value judgement.

 

Yes, I doubt it too. However, Jobs pitched for DRM-free music, but aren't both Disney and Pixar movies still using DRM? He's talking out of both sides of his mouth...

No, he's not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said DRM doesn't work, and he was right. The reason there are still DRMed tunes, DRMed music videos, and DRMed movies is because of the rights holders. The big music and movie companies that still think DRM will work so they can keep making money while taking users fair use rights away. Jobs is on the board of directors, not the head of Pixar/Disney. According to THIS wiki on Pixar, Ed Catmull is the current president. Even if Jobs had been president, Pixar is only a subsidiary of Buena Vista Motion Pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The day the new Mac OS launched, did your "high-end" Mac suddenly not boot up, refused to run your programs, or explode? Your use of the word obsolete should really be reconsidered."

 

are you for real? so your telling me lets say I bought a Dual-core CPU and a week later the quad-core cam out you telling me my pc not obsolete/out-dated? wrong....

 

just becuz it still runs like it did when I bought it dosen't mean its not obsolete/out-dated..... the moment somthing new comes alone and if a pc dosn;t have it or can't run it means ITS IS obsolete/out-dated.. INFACT all PC are obsolete/out-dated the moment you buy them off the shelf OR 3 weeks after you custom Built it and shipped it to you.

 

Welcome to the tech world were it changes faster the my kids dipper has to

 

example of obsolete/out-dated

 

I have a

 

AMD-Dual-Core 4200+ 939

2 gig of ram DDR1 400mhz

Daul SIL 8600GT

1TB Space

Sound Audigy 4

 

all of this is obsolete/out-dated evne though it can haddle vista 64x like it wazn ment to....

 

why is it obsolete/out-dated lets brack it down.

 

AMD-Dual-Core 4200+ 939 (they no longer make 939 socket mainboard and cpus) ( moved to AM2 sockets)

2 gig of ram DDR1 400mhz (DDR 2 is out at 800MHZ

Daul SIL 8600GT (the 8800 Utras are out and are getting replaced by the 9800 in FEB making them obsolete/out-dated)

1TB Space (all these drives are seral ATA) (Sata's are out)

Sound Audigy 4 (X-Fi Boards are out making these obsolete/out-dated )

 

 

My pc rates 5.0 out of 5.9 on vista.. the fact its not 5.9 means its way obsolete/out-dated that in thory it shouldn't even have vista on it...

 

if a pc is not holding 5.9 on vista it should only be stuck to the obsolete/out-dated windows XP...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I should have given my definition of obsolete, which is anything that is no longer useable. However, looking at the dictionary, it also includes out-dated, which I didn't mean to imply. :)

 

I agree, any computer bought at anytime is simultaneously out-dated because new hardware is being developed all the time. However, that computer is still usable and sometimes, upgradeable.

 

I think Socrates said:

"The beginning of knowledge is the defining of terms."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...