Apple Patents WGA-styled Anti-Piracy System

[Cliffton Beach]

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.

There is a few things wrong with this. Dealing with different distros is a problem only for a company that wants to release binary only software. The Linux distros are all source compatible. An open source app that runs on one will run on another. Supporting distro X is then done by distro X. But we don't even need to be talking about Apple releasing software (open or not). Open specs would be nice. Documenting the iTunesDB would be nice.

 

The guys behind libgpod have made a library that enables various apps (gtkpod, amarok) to work with the iPod pretty darn well, and have done so with no specs. Providing then with specs would be all Apple would need to do. They pointedly have not done so, so we are stuck constantly reverse engineering each new iteration of the iTunesDB. That's Apple in a nutshell.

 

More on topic: I hope Apple doesn't go the route feared by some of the more doomsday posts in this thread. Linux is in no way ready to step into Apple's shoes easy-usability wise. I'm fine with it (and very thankful I have enough computer knowledge to work easily with Linux), but it will be a while before I can ever recommend it as a worry free OS to someone for whom I won't be there for constant tech support.

[Ruel Smith]

Yes... Not only is the distro support handled by the distro maintainers, but writing an application for Linux is as simple as choosing your environment to write in - GTK, Qt, or normal X-Windows - and writing the application. There is no need to worry about libraries getting loaded or having to support another environment. It's done by the OS for you. If you're in KDE, you can launch X-Windows or GTK apps seamlessly. The OS takes care of launching any libraries it needs, and those libraries are already there in just about every distro. I don't know of any Linux user that doesn't use a mix of applications from all environments. So, for Apple to create iTunes for Linux, it could just simply make it in GTK, which is the common practice, and everyone can use it. There's no need for supporting multiple distros, multiple desktop environments, nor any hardware except the iPod connecting to the application.

 

But, that's neither here nor there. The problem has just been that Apple tried to break 3rd party apps from syncing up to the iPod. They want you to use iTunes so they can sell you something, but they have no Linux iTunes. Again, those iPod owners paid for their iPods. If Apple isn't going to make a Linux iTunes, they need to stop trying to break Linux apps from taking care of that need for its users. The world isn't just made up of Windows and Mac users. And I don't care what the (very inaccurate) marketshare measurements say, there are millions of Linux users out there and that's a pretty sizeable market.

 

You see, it's like this: Say you're a Linux user... Say you want an mp3 player... Okay, Amarok works with iPod, so you decide that since your favorite music player/organizer supports the iPod, you purchase a nice new iPod Touch. However, you discover that Apple has now changed the way the iPod syncs up with iTunes, rendering Amarok useless for this task. Now what? You just shelled out $400 for a music player, only to find out you can't use it in Linux because Apple took measures to ensure it for no reason because it does not offer Linux support. It would be different if it did offer Linux support via iTunes.

 

While we're on the subject of Linux... Homogenous OS users like Windows and Mac OS seem to not understand Linux's agnostic nature. Most Linux users like the choice. I can have something simple like Fluxbox, something more full featured like Gnome, or something very rich and robust like KDE, and I can add Compiz-Fusion to both Gnome and KDE to make it even more rich. It's about choice. Likewise, I can use an RPM based distro, Debian based distro, or source based distro. I can have it easy as pie like Mandriva and PCLinuxOS or have it rough like Gentoo and LFS (Linux from Scratch). If I get tired of what distro A gives me, I have 100 other distros to choose from. But, in the end, it's still Linux. Once it's setup and configured, its the same experience, for the most part. I can run the same apps on all Linux distros. This {censored} about Linux not being unified is absolute misinformation. It's like eggs... I can have them fried, scrambled, boiled, poached, or an omelette. But in the end, it's still eggs...

 

FWIW, you can install Gnome and KDE in OS X, so Mac users also have a choice. It's coming to Windows, as well. http://ranger.users.finkproject.org/kde/index.php/Home

 

Yes, I agree that Linux is not ready for prime time. Linux is not hard to use, and in some cases much easier and more elegant than any other OS out there. However, for the most part, you need to be somewhat computer savvy. You don't need to be a geek, but you can't be someone that needs to call tech support to fix something. Distros like PCLinuxOS are almost mind numbingly simple to install and get setup, but if your sound isn't working or your webcam doesn't work, you need to be ready to research and dig in to get it up and running.

 

Also, though KDE and Gnome have come a long way toward making Linux easy to use, they pale in comparison to the user experience the Mac gives you, though I think they've at least matched the Windows experience. The Mac is so elegant and smooth it's mind blowing. The applications that Apple in particular writes is nothing short of astounding. This is why I want a Mac, again.

 

The man/woman asked for examples of how Apple steps on it's users to protect its revenue streams, and I gave it, but refuses to acknowledge it. However, like I said...it's Christmas. Enjoy the holidays!

[NatMusak]

Yes... Not only is the distro support handled by the distro maintainers, but writing an application for Linux is as simple as choosing your environment to write in - GTK, Qt, or normal X-Windows - and writing the application. There is no need to worry about libraries getting loaded or having to support another environment. It's done by the OS for you. If you're in KDE, you can launch X-Windows or GTK apps seamlessly. The OS takes care of launching any libraries it needs, and those libraries are already there in just about every distro. I don't know of any Linux user that doesn't use a mix of applications from all environments. So, for Apple to create iTunes for Linux, it could just simply make it in GTK, which is the common practice, and everyone can use it. There's no need for supporting multiple distros, multiple desktop environments, nor any hardware except the iPod connecting to the application.

Hmm, I did not know that. I'm not much of a Linux user, though I enjoy the amazing amount of customizability it has. Thanks for explaining that further.

 

 

But, that's neither here nor there. The problem has just been that Apple tried to break 3rd party apps from syncing up to the iPod. They want you to use iTunes so they can sell you something, but they have no Linux iTunes. Again, those iPod owners paid for their iPods. If Apple isn't going to make a Linux iTunes, they need to stop trying to break Linux apps from taking care of that need for its users. The world isn't just made up of Windows and Mac users. And I don't care what the (very inaccurate) marketshare measurements say, there are millions of Linux users out there and that's a pretty sizeable market.

While I can understand your frustration in the iPod not working with third party apps, I heard no hard evidence that states Apple did this to spite Linux users. Why would Apple choose to "break" support now of all times? Why hasn't Apple broken support since the beginning? Couldn't Apple have implemented some new feature or fixed some bug affecting Windows and Apple users that inadvertently broke its use in third party Linux apps?

 

You see, it's like this: Say you're a Linux user... Say you want an mp3 player... Okay, Amarok works with iPod, so you decide that since your favorite music player/organizer supports the iPod, you purchase a nice new iPod Touch. However, you discover that Apple has now changed the way the iPod syncs up with iTunes, rendering Amarok useless for this task. Now what? You just shelled out $400 for a music player, only to find out you can't use it in Linux because Apple took measures to ensure it for no reason because it does not offer Linux support. It would be different if it did offer Linux support via iTunes.

To answer the "Now what?" wouldn't you wait for third parties to write a patch?

Also, you say Apple did this for "no reason." I think that's why I have a hard time buying the story. I'm just not understanding the reason Apple would do this on purpose.

 

This {censored} about Linux not being unified is absolute misinformation. It's like eggs... I can have them fried, scrambled, boiled, poached, or an omelette. But in the end, it's still eggs...

What I meant about Linux not being unified is basically there are a thousand flavors. Sure, it's still Linux, but the apps that come bundled with each distro differ, the windowing environments differ, icons differ, UI elements differ (task bars, default theme, etc.) their system requirements can differ (as in, whether you can practically run Compiz, for example). Now compare that to Leopard, which is the same no matter where you buy it. Same with Windoz (if you can pick which horrible version you want to waste your time in).

 

 

Yes, I agree that Linux is not ready for prime time. Linux is not hard to use, and in some cases much easier and more elegant than any other OS out there. However, for the most part, you need to be somewhat computer savvy. You don't need to be a geek, but you can't be someone that needs to call tech support to fix something. Distros like PCLinuxOS are almost mind numbingly simple to install and get setup, but if your sound isn't working or your webcam doesn't work, you need to be ready to research and dig in to get it up and running.

I think you bring up another reason Apple might be holding back official Linux support. Some Linux distros are either not very user friendly, or they don't recognize some hardware (which isn't necessarily the distro producer's fault). What if someone downloads iTunes on their Linux PC and after importing a CD, they hit play and they hear nothing b/c there are no drivers written for the soundcard? Does the user contact Apple? If they're a new Linux user, they may not realize a trip to their distro's forum will solve the problem, so instead they bad mouth Apple, like how the Windowz users do when iPods have trouble running on their horrible OS.

 

Also, though KDE and Gnome have come a long way toward making Linux easy to use, they pale in comparison to the user experience the Mac gives you, though I think they've at least matched the Windows experience. The Mac is so elegant and smooth it's mind blowing. The applications that Apple in particular writes is nothing short of astounding. This is why I want a Mac, again.

What do you mean by "they've at least matched the Windows experience?" Not being combative, just wondering. Do you think Macs are only as usable as Windows? If that were the case, I'd be using Linux right now.

 

The man/woman asked for examples of how Apple steps on it's users to protect its revenue streams, and I gave it, but refuses to acknowledge it. However, like I said...it's Christmas. Enjoy the holidays!

I acknowledge your right to state your opinions, but some of the examples, like your old Mac not being upgradeable when it could have been, felt vague or misinformed. However, I think the way in which I addressed each example may have sounded harsh or cutting, which I apologize for. I felt insulted when you called me wrong and critiqued me, rather than just debating the issue, but that didn't give me the right to have an edge.

 

Merry Xmas to you...and everyone else.

[Ruel Smith]

While I can understand your frustration in the iPod not working with third party apps, I heard no hard evidence that states Apple did this to spite Linux users. Why would Apple choose to "break" support now of all times? Why hasn't Apple broken support since the beginning? Couldn't Apple have implemented some new feature or fixed some bug affecting Windows and Apple users that inadvertently broke its use in third party Linux apps?

 

Well, I probably made it sound as if it was directed at Linux, but I think they just wanted to squash all 3rd party apps, regardless of platform, from syncing up. It only keeps the competition on its toes because the change will be figured out. However, it doesn't stop them from changing it on another upgrade, again. The way I see it, and it's just my opinion as of this point, is that despite that you can keep the iTunes Store out of site, the mere availablity of it makes it more likely you'll purchase. This is what they bet on. Therefore, they want you to connect to iTunes so that they have a better chance of you spending money. Using 3rd party apps circumvents this and you'll less likely purchase.

 

What I meant about Linux not being unified is basically there are a thousand flavors. Sure, it's still Linux, but the apps that come bundled with each distro differ, the windowing environments differ, icons differ, UI elements differ (task bars, default theme, etc.) their system requirements can differ (as in, whether you can practically run Compiz, for example). Now compare that to Leopard, which is the same no matter where you buy it. Same with Windoz (if you can pick which horrible version you want to waste your time in).

 

Well, you can install X-windows, Gnome, and KDE in Mac OS X. OS X is more like a Linux shipped only with KDE and no other choices, for instance. There are still alternatives you can get and install from other sources, but the distro limits you to only KDE support from them. OS X is still Unix, and therefore it can run any Unix app out there, including other desktop environments.

 

 

I think you bring up another reason Apple might be holding back official Linux support. Some Linux distros are either not very user friendly, or they don't recognize some hardware (which isn't necessarily the distro producer's fault). What if someone downloads iTunes on their Linux PC and after importing a CD, they hit play and they hear nothing b/c there are no drivers written for the soundcard? Does the user contact Apple? If they're a new Linux user, they may not realize a trip to their distro's forum will solve the problem, so instead they bad mouth Apple, like how the Windowz users do when iPods have trouble running on their horrible OS.

 

I can understand the thought process, but at the same time, Linux users tend to be more computer savvy and will less likely have these issues. Yes, there are newbies, but they usually find the forum to get help from on the same site they get their Linux from. Also, the distro would (should be allowed to) package it, which would make installing it much easier for the end user, the same way they package Flash, Acrobat, and nVidia drivers, nullifying this argument.

 

What do you mean by "they've at least matched the Windows experience?" Not being combative, just wondering. Do you think Macs are only as usable as Windows? If that were the case, I'd be using Linux right now.

 

No, I mean KDE and Gnome having matched the Windows experience. The Mac is light years ahead of everyone else in this department, and has been for a long time. Heck, even the first version of OS X is still better than XP or Vista by a couple of miles...

 

BTW, just to address something you asked earlier, no my Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is my newer machine. My Athlon XP 2800+ is my older machine and the one I have Linux running on. Linux runs pretty fast on it with full Compiz-fusion goodness and KDE and all. It was just a monster on my newer machine when I had it on there, and it's going back soon. When I finally get a Mac, you can bet Boot Camp will be setting up Linux on there too - PCLinuxOS to be exact. I love Macs, but I proably love Linux even more.

[NatMusak]

Well, I probably made it sound as if it was directed at Linux, but I think they just wanted to squash all 3rd party apps, regardless of platform, from syncing up. It only keeps the competition on its toes because the change will be figured out. However, it doesn't stop them from changing it on another upgrade, again. The way I see it, and it's just my opinion as of this point, is that despite that you can keep the iTunes Store out of site, the mere availablity of it makes it more likely you'll purchase. This is what they bet on. Therefore, they want you to connect to iTunes so that they have a better chance of you spending money. Using 3rd party apps circumvents this and you'll less likely purchase.

I think that argument would be hard to debate if the majority of media (music, movies, etc.) on people's iPods was bought from iTunes. However, most media on iPods is either from CDs, or usually from P2P/torrent sites. 99% of my stuff is not from the iTunes Store. Apple knows this, which is why they said DRM is trivial. If they wanted users to only use iTunes simply because they wanted them to buy media, wouldn't they make the iTS more visible? Also, how many other mp3 players have had third party support on every platform? Apple has the right to "tie" iPods and iTunes together so that it's iPods function as advertised. Its like their Mac philosophy, which places software hand-in-hand with hardware.

 

Well, you can install X-windows, Gnome, and KDE in Mac OS X. OS X is more like a Linux shipped only with KDE and no other choices, for instance.

So, did you get what I was saying? Yes, you can install those other windowing environments, but not from the OS X install disc. Those are post-installation options, like installing any app on any OS. However, Leopard's gonna look the same, be bundled with the same apps, etc., unlike the thousands of different Linux distros. I'm not putting down the choice inherent in Linux, just noting the difference.

 

No, I mean KDE and Gnome having matched the Windows experience. The Mac is light years ahead of everyone else in this department, and has been for a long time. Heck, even the first version of OS X is still better than XP or Vista by a couple of miles...

I think I'd have to disagree with you there. KDE and GNOME, in my opinion, have surpassed WinXP and Vista. They just look better to me. And with Compiz, Vista's grotesque overuse of transparency can be matched (though I don't know why anyone would want to), and surpassed thanks to 3D-desktop switching, Expose style effects, etc. I really wish Apple would use the live thumbnail alt-tab in Mac OS X, personally. I do wish more Linux distros either emulated the OS X look or had their own unique style, rather than mimicking Windows so often, but some do and it's easy to change the look.

[Ruel Smith]

Most mp3 players show up as an external storage device in Linux. You just swap files just as you would a USB flash drive. This isn't quite as elegant as the iPod and iTunes combination, but it works.

[Special-K]

Why should I be considered "guilty until proven innocent"?

 

It's actually innocent until proven guilty buddy.

[NatMusak]

It's actually innocent until proven guilty buddy.

Actually, he was saying he feels as if he is being treated like a thief, rather than being treated innocent until proven otherwise.

[runwitmeeh]

Eh...i saw this coming...as with the rise of popularity with any type of software so does the rise in piracy. And with such acts of piracy comes the need to protect ones investment. I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs and them don't like us too much but want to keep that "we welcome everybody" type facade going so they haven't as yet shut the community down. If people really think that apple needs "poor mans marketing" then they need to think again. And Steve Jobs isn't your friend. If he was, he'd look like a buggy eyed penguin that gave you a free OS that you can download off the internet. Yay for Linux!

[xswatrifle]

this is gonna be like WW3 on macs if they keep doing this i mean why the would they do this, its just sharing? this gonna effect their business in the future

[zdeer1]

Ok, I hate to argue on the side of Windows in a Mac-related site, but this argument has me seeing some things that are a little mislead. First off, Windows is not all that bad. I have 3 computers, 2 w/ Vista and an older one with XP that haven't really had any problems. Ok that was more of an opinion but now onto my argument:

 

1. The reason Microsoft has a majority - almost monopoly - of the OS industry: User Interface

Mac OS has no real user interface. Let's pretend that someone who had never used a computer before was put in front of two computers, one a Mac and the other a PC with whatever flavor of Windows from 95-XP, Vista somewhat although my first part gets set off by Vista with the new "Orb" instead of the Start button.

 

If the new user looks at the Mac desktop, how the is he supposed to know what to do??? I mean, the applications are buried under the Finder, and the dock has some programs but even then they're not 100% clear on what they do. C'mon - Safari??? Now what do you suppose that does as compared to something clearly called "Internet Explorer".

 

Windows, however, has a neat little button on the bottom of the screen that says "Start". Hmm..., I wonder what I should do? A brain-dead monkey w/ a wrench could figure that one out. The Start Menu opens up to a clearly labeled menu that has links to "My Documents" and "My Computer" coupled with "Help & Support" and "Search". The Internet and E-mail links are present, along with some common programs. Then, a clearly labeled "All Programs" button opens up to every single program that is installed onto the computer. Again, a brain-dead monkey could figure it out.

 

I will admit that Vista throws my argument off a bit with its new "Orb" instead of the Start button. Vista is not my preferred Windows OS, although some of its features are a nice addition.

 

2.Transparency, Anyone?

 

Now we'll compare Vista's and Leopard's transparency. I remember that when Vista came out, it was criticized for having the transparency effects. Now that Leopard has it, along with a more "opaque" setting, suddenly its the coolest thing ever and Apple didn't make a mistake, although Microsoft sure did. LOL I see something wrong with that.

 

3. I would like people to read http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/macosx_leopard.asp on the shortcomings of Leopard. Yes, it is a Windows fan-boy site, but it does fairly and bias-lessly (idk if that is even a word) review Leopard.

 

4. I read somewhere, but I can't seem to find where now, that compares the number of Hotfixes and Security Fixes in Vista as compared to Leopard. If anyone could find that and point it out, much appreciated.

 

Ok, I'm done ranting now. I usually don't argue on the side of Windows, but reading this argument made me mad over what all was said about "Windoz". I'm sure however Apple applies its WGA-styled system (which was what the original topic was about, although it seemed to lose track of that) will be unobtrusive to the everyday, legal user. The only time that WGA gets in the way of Windows users is if they don't have a legit version. The everyday user is perfectly happy with having WGA on their computer. If anyone has any complaints, additions, or suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.

[Lostgame]

I'm proud to be the first to disprove your second point:

 

2.Transparency, Anyone?

 

Now we'll compare Vista's and Leopard's transparency. I remember that when Vista came out, it was criticized for having the transparency effects. Now that Leopard has it, along with a more "opaque" setting, suddenly its the coolest thing ever and Apple didn't make a mistake, although Microsoft sure did. LOL I see something wrong with that.

 

lol?

 

Vista's transparency settings, first off, are horribly bloated and have been known to cause minor and even major slowdowns, particularly on Laptops, where video cards are generally known to suck ass anyways. Even on the MacBook (non-pro) they struggle, yet somehow there's no slowdown on Leopard, actually, might I be the first to say I noticed no speed drop, and definite improvements in boot up time with Leopard?

 

Secondly, there has been more criticism about the inclusion of transparency effects in Leopard than praise - menu bar, anyone?

 

Sorry, I can't help invalidating people's points XD

 

Also - Leopard sucks balls. I much prefer Tiger and wish there was a simple way to downgrade... >.<

[zdeer1]

That is a valid point, although the Vista transparency is easily turned off, while I'm not aware of a way to turn off transparency in Leopard. My point was just that Steve Jobs criticized the Transparency in one of his speeches then turns around and displays it on Leopard. That was more my point than how sucky each one is. I will definitely say that the reason Vista's transparency slows down the computer more is because the transparency is an overall effect as compared to just some things in Leopard. The latest graphics drivers and SP1 have improved this greatly, BTW. Leopards is more toned down, although depending on the wallpaper stuff can get lost in the effect. Sorry, I don't usually use LOL but it felt like a good time and the little emoticon menu wasn't working. I do like your one quote in the signature about the stability and compatibility issues. SP1 definitely fixed a lot of these problems, and hopefully when it comes out and Apple releases a few more updates for Leopard they will both be great OS's that will "live long and prosper" like Tiger and XP did.

[Numberzz]

I've used these images before but I don't see any harm in bringing them up again...

[NatMusak]

1. The reason Microsoft has a majority - almost monopoly - of the OS industry: User Interface

Mac OS has no real user interface.

Mac OS has no "real" interface? Right, when you turn one on there's just nothing on the screen...

 

 

If the new user looks at the Mac desktop, how the is he supposed to know what to do??? I mean, the applications are buried under the Finder, and the dock has some programs but even then they're not 100% clear on what they do. C'mon - Safari??? Now what do you suppose that does as compared to something clearly called "Internet Explorer".

Oh, so because Mac OS X doesn't treat it's users like kindergartners by placing the word "Start" somewhere, people will be lost? Come on now.

 

Applications are not "buried" in the Finder. Some are displayed in the Dock (generally the most useful ones) while the rest are in the Finder's sidebar, under Applications. The Finder helps you find everything on your computer, which makes a bit more sense than just Start.

 

Internet Explorer may be initially easier to identify as a browser than Safari, but then again, that's only due to Window's monopoly status. Once you know Safari is the browser, it's pretty unforgettable. I can think of a number of Windows utilities and programs (Windows Live v. iChat, Outlook v. Mail, Control Panel v. System Preferences, Windows Explorer v. Finder; HyperTerminal, Run, Registry, the Accessories folder, and my fav, the Recycle Bin) that are named oddly.

 

Windows, however, has a neat little button on the bottom of the screen that says "Start". Hmm..., I wonder what I should do? A brain-dead monkey w/ a wrench could figure that one out. The Start Menu opens up to a clearly labeled menu that has links to "My Documents" and "My Computer" coupled with "Help & Support" and "Search". The Internet and E-mail links are present, along with some common programs. Then, a clearly labeled "All Programs" button opens up to every single program that is installed onto the computer. Again, a brain-dead monkey could figure it out.

If you've ever used a Mac (which obviously you haven't, or haven't much), the Finder's sidbar contains the following clearly visible folders:

-Network

-Macintosh HD (kind of like My Computer in Windows)

-Desktop

-Home folder

-Applications

-Documents

-Movies

-Music

-Pictures

 

I will admit that Vista throws my argument off a bit with its new "Orb" instead of the Start button. Vista is not my preferred Windows OS, although some of its features are a nice addition.

Right. You wouldn't wanna get lost on the desktop, not knowing where to start...

 

2.Transparency, Anyone?

 

Now we'll compare Vista's and Leopard's transparency. I remember that when Vista came out, it was criticized for having the transparency effects. Now that Leopard has it, along with a more "opaque" setting, suddenly its the coolest thing ever and Apple didn't make a mistake, although Microsoft sure did. LOL I see something wrong with that.

You see something wrong with Leopard's use of transparency, which is fairly light, compared to Vista's grotesque over-use of transparency that not only affects performance, but also makes navigation more difficult. The top of many Vista windows are transparent and when they overlap, they bleed together.

 

Meanwhile Leopard's only misuse of transparency is in the Menu Bar, which has been a tad over-dramatized considering it only affects people with overly busy desktop pictures and bad eyes. It's not such a difficult thing to remedy if Apple decided to increase the opaqueness.

 

 

3. I would like people to read http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/macosx_leopard.asp on the shortcomings of Leopard. Yes, it is a Windows fan-boy site, but it does fairly and bias-lessly (idk if that is even a word) review Leopard.

One of your points is to read Paul Thurrott's review of Leopard? He's one of the most uninformed Windows shills. Is this where you're getting your talking points?

 

4. I read somewhere, but I can't seem to find where now, that compares the number of Hotfixes and Security Fixes in Vista as compared to Leopard. If anyone could find that and point it out, much appreciated.

Are you trying to pull up some article that shows the number of security fixes in Vista vs. Leopard? I'm guessing that article says Vista has more. Just because MS has spent more on security this time around doesn't mean Leopard is slacking. It means MS had more holes to plug. Mac OS X is fundamentally more secure.

 

Ok, I'm done ranting now. I usually don't argue on the side of Windows, but reading this argument made me mad over what all was said about "Windoz". I'm sure however Apple applies its WGA-styled system (which was what the original topic was about, although it seemed to lose track of that) will be unobtrusive to the everyday, legal user. The only time that WGA gets in the way of Windows users is if they don't have a legit version. The everyday user is perfectly happy with having WGA on their computer. If anyone has any complaints, additions, or suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.

WGA didn't just affect those who illigally obtained Windows, but also those who simply moved their hard drive from one PC to another, or made other alterations to their systems that MS deemed illegal. I don't think I've ever heard someone argue for WGA.

 

As for this Apple "WGA-styled system," I linked earlier to an article HERE that debunks that myth and gives a logical use of the technology which Apple patented back in 2005.

[zdeer1]

1. Thats USER interface, not just a GUI. I guess maybe User Experience would be a better description. I don't know, it made sense to me.

 

2. For the average human being, the Start menu is much simpler and easier to use. I know that many of my clients can easily find their way around a PC, with the exception of Vista, much better than a Mac. Thats just my observation, it wasn't a proven fact.

 

3. I honestly don't like either version of transparency, my point was that Vista was criticized by Steve Jobs for having the transparency and then he turns around and decides to announce it in Leopard. That was my point only. I don't really like either version of the transparency.

 

4. I was trying to find an un-biased Leopard review that was actually fair, not strongly biased towards one side of the argument. It was the only one I could find on short notice.

 

5. Actually, the article said that there have been more fixes for Leopard then Vista. That really wasn't a point, it was more of an observation about the different volumes of fixes. I just couldn't find that article and was looking for it again.

 

6. I'm not really arguing for WGA, I just think that sometimes the whole issue gets blown way overboard, mostly by pirates. Again, I repeat that however Apple implements it, i'm sure won't be so sadistic that it drives people away from the Mac.

 

OH yeah, and to Numberzz: You actually proved my point by showing that. I did say that the Vista interface is different than the others and throws my point off.

 

To ALL: I really don't like Vista any more than anyone else, and most of my points are from my own observations of my clients, not a scientific panel. I realize it may not be the most formal way to conduct tests, but real-world observations tend to show more.

[NatMusak]

To ALL: I really don't like Vista any more than anyone else, and most of my points are from my own observations of my clients, not a scientific panel. I realize it may not be the most formal way to conduct tests, but real-world observations tend to show more.

The problem with your observations is that they all appear to be based on either your preferences due to being a Windows user or hearsay from these "clients" of yours, who also all use Windows. I appreciate that you admit this to a certain extent, but what were you expecting? I've been using Windows since 2000 both at home and school and when I first used a Mac at work, I felt a bit lost. After just a few times on the thing, I realized that it wasn't that different, but where it was different, it was a good kind of different. Same thing when I tried Puppy Linux and Ubuntu. Once you really start using a Mac, you'll notice a serious change: you'll actually enjoy using your computer.

 

It's hard to put a price on having fun with a Mac when you're so used to using a Windows PC that's mediocre at best, unintuitive, unstable, and insecure at worst.

[webterractive]

This probably means that Apple is getting ready to release a full version of the PC user at a higher cost.