![Intel Intel](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/intel_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![Privacy Privacy](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/privacy_64.png)
![Apple Apple](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/apple_64.png)
No DRM for Apple in Intel-based Macs 459
JWeinraub writes "OfB is reporting that, contrary to widely-published and discussed rumors, Apple is not including the controversial Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in its Intel-based Macs. An anonymous registered Apple developer claims that the Apple x86 test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components." From the article: "As to why those with access to the kits have been quiet concerning the claims, our source said, 'you can rest assured that Apple is keeping very close tabs on those of us who have them.' The kits are only available to those who accept a non-disclosure agreement."
Market opening indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:3)
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Or that computer without DRM ever existed..
Giving the whort attention span people have these days, we will probably forget this whole ordeal in a day or two...
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Who are you?
What is this?
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Funny)
No TPM? No IP for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is Pegasos PPC from Genesi who is catering to the Linux PPC workstation crowd. And you can still buy Sun workstation computers too. And there are many other manufacturers making computers like this. These manufacturers probably won't ever add DRM to restrict the people that buy these machines.
And they won't be able to connect to the Internet if the vast majority of ISPs require Trusted Network Connect in order to get an IP address, which some people expect to happen between 2011 and 2015, possibly by force of law [slashdot.org].
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bring back the BBS (Score:3, Funny)
2. Connect the line to the modem to the box, where the house line was
3. ???
4. Profit!
Either way Steve needs to deploy the RDF (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need here is some of Steve Jobs's patented straight talk routine. Stand up and tell us that the DRM will work solely to limit the OS to Apple-branded systems, or whatever... but tell us something, rather than having rumors turn themselves over on slashdot.
(Not that there's any way to get 'hold of /. rumors for good. But you want to shape them a little.)
don't be so melodramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
The trusted computing hardware doesn't prevent you from running untrusted code, it just prevents untrusted code from accessing protected data. What the lack of inclusion of trusted computing hardware would mean is simply that, if trusted computing catches on on Windows, a lot of Windows-based music and video can't be accessed on the Macintosh at all.
Would this leave Apple as the only "General computer" left?
Apple has never produced "general computers"; they don't support running other operating systems on their hardware, and they have a long history of using proprietary and undocumented hardware components in their Macintosh platform. The reason things have gotten better recently is not a change of heart at Apple, but the fact that they are increasingly using standard PC components in their systems.
A more accross the board move to Apple could even be a boon to linux as more people accept the fact that there are options to wintel
Apple hardware will be a decent choice for Linux as soon as (1) Apple gives you the option of buying the hardware without the software and (2) Linux developers aren't forced to create drivers by reverse engineering anymore.
On balance, I still think it's good for Apple to leave this out; if they really need it later, they should be able to provide it as a USB dongle. However, leaving it out doesn't make Macintosh an "open platform"; it never has been, and the way it looks, it won't be any time soon.
start researching your facts (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. Apple and OSF Research Institute started MkLinux to run atop PowerPC hardware. In addition, Apple ran AIX on some of their older servers.
In the early to mid-nineties yes they did. In the late nineties Apple switched this and moved to a completely open platform. They use OpenFirmware (which ( if you didn't pick up
Re:start researching your facts (Score:3, Informative)
Macintosh hardware remains partially undocumented (in some cases, because Apple chose to use proprietary and undocumented PC components), and open source operating systems can't make full use of the hardware. That's true even for MkLinux.
That makes Macintosh a worse platform for open source operating systems than PC hardware. The fact that the only way you can buy
Re:start researching your facts (Score:5, Informative)
I think this company [terrasoftsolutions.com] would tell you otherwise. (OK, it does ship with software, but its the precious Linux you want to run on it anyway).
Their processor, motherboard, and BIOS are clearly not standard PC components.
As stated above, current Macintosh computers don't use a BIOS, they use OpenFirmware, which, as the name implies, is open. As for the processor and motherboard, what about them is undocumented, that isn't with PC hardware? I'd guess Motorola and IBM are actually MORE open than Intel is about their processors, and most motherboard manufacturers don't tell you that much info beyond what chipset their using, so in this case, they're about as open as Apple is with their motherboards.
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm always surprised when I read comments like this. Especially highly modded. What percentage of the market share do you think would really change there buying decision to preference a non-DRM computer. Do you think it is even 1% when you consider how high a percentage is just bought by schools and businesses in bulk. Plus I don't know how much it matters to t
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the specs required to play HD-DVD on a PC:
1. An HDCP/HDMI compatible graphics card.
2. An HDCP/HDMI compatible monitor/display.
3. A DRM capable sound card
4. DRM capable digital speakers
5. A DRM capable motherboard
6. (possibly) a DRM capable processor
7. Longhorn
8. An HD-DVD drive
So to play HD-DVD on a PC you will basically need to buy a complete new PC, using components that aren't even available yet.
If OSX avoids/never implements DRM this shortens to:
1. An HD-DVD drive
(I'm as
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:3, Informative)
1. An HD-DVD drive
And if all those DRM features are needed on a PC to play the disk, you can bet the Mac will never be licensed to legally play back the disks, unless they include a form of DRM that's equally as strong. So you while you can have fun making HD-DVD disks of your home movies in iMovie, you aren't going to be playing back the lastest and greatest from the MPAA.
This flies in the face of reality (Score:5, Informative)
While it is very much correct that the Developer Transition Platform does not represent shipping or production hardware, the motherboard does indeed have an Infineon Trusted Platform Module [infineon.com] controller right on the motherboard [imageshack.us]. Mac OS X for Intel Platforms contains a TCPA/TPM kernel extension, by the name of AppleTPMACPI.kext.
It's very much correct that this doesn't necessarily represent the shipping hardware. Apple today doesn't have serialization, product activation, or any other limiting copy protection technology in place on Mac OS X. It is purely tied to Apple hardware by the Mac OS X EULA [apple.com], which, by tying Mac OS X to Apple-branded hardware only, effectively quashes any commercial entity from developing and promoting any other platform that might support Mac OS X. Granted, the landscape changes with Mac OS X running on the x86 architecture, but until a production Mac OS X machine ships, there is absolutely nothing to indicate the final scenario one way or the other.
The rest of the article, however, makes no sense in that, while he correctly asserts that the Developer Transition Platform doesn't represent the final shipping product, it does indeed contain an Infineon TPM module.
Keep in mind that the motherboard in the Developer Transition Platform is a very generic one, and could just as easily be a preexisting Intel motherboard that already includes TPM. Remember: everything in the Developer Transition Platform at present is generic Intel components. They don't support FireWire 800, Bluetooth, 802.11, and have a generic standard Intel BIOS. Does that imply shipping machines will be that way? No? Then neither does the inclusion of a TPM chip on this particular motherboard. There is precedent for Apple taking special care to disallow the spread of prerelease/developer software and hardware, while having no such equivalent restrictions in the final product.
In short, to quote Dean Reece [apple.com] of Apple:
"Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product."
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:2)
I will not be buying anymore Apples then. I'm sorry. I don't care who does it, or what reason they have for doing it, crippling your hardware in that way in the name of a business model isn't acceptable.
And for all those snide comments about giving hackers something to break... Well, those same hackers will end up going to jail. We've seen what happens to mod-chip makers. This kind of hardware practically requires a mod-chip to bypass, unless you're Microsoft and make such horribly buggy software that
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, so you may not have heared about that obscure OS called Linux
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know why you'd want to, as you can get the same hardware performance for half the money with an x86 laptop, but you can.
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:2)
He can run linux just fine. There is not hardware vendor lockin, there is just a limit as to what will run on the hardware.
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:2, Insightful)
I will probably* buy a Mac if the latter is true.
)* I own 4 Macs but my new laptop is a PC running Ubuntu.because if Macs wireless issues.
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:2, Interesting)
No, no, no. People keep on saying this, but it is not true. Name one EC case in which post-sale restrictions on use have been upheld by the EC courts. Name one EC case in which the provisions of a EULA forbidding installation on a particular type of machine, o
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:2)
Dude, you're toast.
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:2)
So to tell you the truth, I don't even care what the development Macs have or don't have. They could have a full-scale implementation of Palladium
Conflicting reports (Score:5, Interesting)
So we have some people saying that there are DRM chips in the x86 macs, and some people saying that there aren't DRM chips in the x86 macs... did it ever occur to anybody that Apple might be shipping different configurations to different people? It makes sense that they'd try a few different things out before release.
Re:Conflicting reports (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Conflicting reports (Score:2)
Re:Conflicting reports (Score:5, Interesting)
Who to believe? (Score:2)
We shall find out within a year...
Re:Who to believe? (Score:5, Informative)
Blessed are they who have not seen (Score:2)
Re:Who to believe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know *for sure* that the circuit board pictured there is from a beta MacTel?
Lets assume it is;
Do you know *for sure* that the chip is on every beta MacTel?
Re:Who to believe? It's a classic shell game (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you don't see a TPM on a motherboard pic doesn't mean that the same functionality hasn't been integrated into the silicon of another chip.
On the Intel 945G mobo, this is exactly what has happened [digitmag.co.uk].
There, the TPM functionality is inside the chipset that accompanies the CPU. The chipset typically handles the interface to DRAM and controls the flow of data to output devices, among other things. By the time the MacTels roll out, the TPM will most likely not be a separate chip anymore (to sibli
D915GUX (Score:2)
http://www.ixbt.com/mainboard/images/roundup-i915g -sep2k4/d915gux-board.jpg [ixbt.com]
If you look at photos of the same region of an Apple X86 Developer MLB, you'll see a chip.
I'd like to see the kernel output from an attempt to boot on one of those..
They're $109 at Fry's, d00ds. You can take it back when you're done.
NDA (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I can see how well that's working for them.
Re:NDA (Score:5, Interesting)
The rumors out there are likely "Well, I heard from this one guy... that attended WWDC on a Student Scholarship that the dev kits..."
Re:NDA (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah, but you wouldn't buy one anyways. That's the problem with all these people that say "if apple just did this and that, I'd buy one." No, you wouldn't. Apple could sell OS X for $19.95 and you still wouldn't buy it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Beta Macs? (Score:2)
Apple may not care what people do with the Developer Macs because of the tight NDAs, but I'm sure they have a plan in place for the millions of iTels to come. Apple has repeatedly stated they are a hardware company and to loose their OS to cheap PCs would spell death to their business model.
I'm still confused (Score:3, Insightful)
The article also states that these in no way represent the shipped product, which makes sense, but if they say that there is no DRM and then say that the shipped product will be different, does that mean that production Macintels will have DRM?
I had been concerned recently and was considering not recommending Macs to people asking me what computer to buy. Please Apple, give us a definite answer on this.
Re:I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)
The chip is in *some* of the dev kits. That's all we know for sure. The rest is rumour.
Is it on all dev kits?
Is it enabled?
Is it enforced if enabled?
Will it make it onto the released kit?
Simple answer: Dunno.
Re:I'm still confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymous truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow - so regardless that the dev kits contain the code and the mobo's contain the chip, an anonymous developer said they don't have them?
Well obviously the anonymous developer must be right; after all - who can argue with anonimity?
Re:Anonymous truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Well obviously the anonymous developer must be right; after all - who can argue with anonimity?"
I am quite sure that everybody who claimed to have seen some chip on an Apple devkit machine has done so anonymously, and so has anybody who claimed to have taken a photo of an Apple devkit motherboard. Because if they put their name to it, Apple will jump on them so hard that they never recover.
So for all we know, the guys who claim to have seen any DRM chip could be complete idiots who have never been anywhere near an Intel Mac. In any case, they are in breach of an NDA, therefore not trustworthy. If they breach their contract with Apple, what makes you think they would tell _you_ the truth?
Re:Anonymous truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets see - anonymous developer says "test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components", then your answer to the evidence of the chip [imageshack.us] on the board [appleinsider.com] is..?
Re:Anonymous truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite possible this was a toe dip . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
So they went from "We're going to lock down OSX with Treacherous Computing" to "DRM? What DRM?"
better idea and no DRM required (Score:5, Interesting)
All Apple would need to do to prevent their OS from being run on generic hardware, would be to use a totally different addressing schema than that used by generic DOS/Windows/Linux PCs. Of course, it will still be possible to compile Linux and BSD for Apple hardware {the absolute minimum you need to port any OS written in a compiled language to a new architecture is an interpreter, written in assembler, and just capable enough to understand the compiler compiling itself}. But OS XI would not run on generic hardware because the memory map would be all wrong and the I/O devices would be in the wrong places. And as long as Apple did not release the source code, nobody would be able to recompile OS XI for generic hardware.
Re:better idea and no DRM required (Score:3, Informative)
The last thing any OS wants to do is tie themselves too tightly to a hardware layout.
The way things work now is you use device drivers to handle the hardware. That way you can use ATI or Nividia GPUs. The whole different memory map thing just isn't part of modern computers anymore. Think about it. OS/X runs on both PowerPC and Intel! WindowsNT/2000 ran on Alpha, MIPS, Intel, and PPC.
devkits (Score:3, Insightful)
Development kits are first cuts at hardware and often lack or contain hardware not in the final version.
Re:devkits (Score:3, Insightful)
I have. Dev kits often have more memory, extra debugging interfaces, extra peripherals because management hasn't decided on whether to include them, and etc. I've also developed software on dev kits lacking hardware not seen in the final revision. Because if your software development is completely independent of the
Can Apple possibly NOT include TPM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I don't think Apple is going to have a choice in this matter. When the big media companies have seen TC and its "benefits" on the Wintel Vista boxes, they will demand it on Apple boxes. Since Apple doesn't currently have the *COMPUTER* marketshare to stand up to the MPAA/RIAA, on the COMPUTER (where video content will come), they will be unable to get any of the content that media companies will be comfortable releasing to a Trusted Vista box. Since Apple only has 5% market share, it won't hurt much to leave them out.
So why does Apple NEED that content? Simple. In recent years, Steve Jobs is taking steps to reinvent Apple as a media company. Not a media PRODUCTION company, but a company that makes media-centric equipment. The iPod now contributes far more than its fair share of profits to Apple's bottom line. Jobs has visions of Apple computers being the "hub" of a home media system. How can any of this POSSIBLY happen when the companies that control the content will not release it to non-DRMed Apples?
Jobs is a good negotiator -- that is clear from his dealings with music companies with iTunes. But there is NOTHING that the MPAA/RIAA is more afraid of than rampant piracy. They see it as bad now, but potentially MUCH worse when all those computers are connected to home TVs and stereos. The sad reality (for me, especially, as I would certainly get a non-TPMed Apple if it was the only "free" (as in speech) choice) is that it WILL happen sooner or later, because it would be a major stumbling block to Apple's foreseeable future as a media-delivery company.
Re:Can Apple possibly NOT include TPM? (Score:5, Informative)
The music industry has found a combination that seems to work in iTunes. While it's obviously possible to break the DRM, we have no evidence that it's happening on a wide scale. Most people just burn-rerip for player compatibility, and few people notice the difference in most cases.
Just try and remember that unlike geeks and hackers, marketing and management people are very quick to jump on a solution that works and stick with it. Even small variations that cause minute dips or rises in sales can mean huge changes in quarterly reports. The Risk of locking out iTunes is enourmous. Both Apple and the recording industry stand in a position of mostly equal power in this situation.They have a solution that is working very well right now. If they were to change it, they would almost certainly take a huge hit. Make no mistake, things are not going well for the record industry right now. It's doubtful that they can afford another major paradigm shift, especially when this Napster/Yahoo New Deal has shown that consumers are smart enough to see through the ploy and reject them.
Another example of poor reporting! (Score:3, Insightful)
The media needs to focus on reporting the facts! Don't turn headlines into flamebait or exagerations used to draw in readers and sell more ads.
Actually, Apple might be telling the truth! (Score:2)
Re:Actually, Apple might be telling the truth! (Score:2)
I know the chip is physically there, but I don't think it's being used for anything important. My proof? Well, for starters, someone (Blex86r from the OSX86 project) got OS X for x86 running in VMWare [flickr.com]. If there was DRM, I think he might have had a bit of a harder time getting it to work.
Dueling Rumors (Score:3, Funny)
So far, the sum of these stories is: "There's a 50% chance that Apple will use DRM!" vs. "There's a 50% chance that Apple won't use DRM!"
This would be a perfect topic for a pundit tracker [slashdot.org].
DRM is a Moot Point Right Now (Score:3, Informative)
Apple has made it clear that it will take "MacTel" hardware to run OSX. Most
Apple is not stupid - Whatever they are cooking up for protecting their hardware wouldn't be put in the hands of the very people that could try to defeat it.
And in case you think I may have missed the point about why there may be support for DRM (as it applies to Music/Movies etc) I haven't. I happen to think this is coming one way or another - Apple may simply use it to lock down OSX to MacTel hardware.
TPM is not DRM (Score:4, Informative)
I have a computer with a TPM that I bought for research, and I tried to get one with a key and a certificate, but it was impossible. Even though it was for legitimate security research, everyone has been scared by all the anti-TCPA and anti-Palladium activism on the net.
You can still do some useful things with the TPM; it has crypto features and can do some Tripwire-like functionality. But this is not DRM.
It's entirely possible that Apple is using the TPM for various purposes. Theoretically the software could look for a particular brand of TPM and use that to somewhat limit which boxes it would run on. Or it could be using it for the crypto functions.
But that is a far cry from using it for DRM or the other advanced features in the TCPA spec. My reading of the various claims and counter-claims is that Apple is in fact shipping with a TPM but it is not using it for DRM and has no plans to do so. That is generally consistent with what all sides are saying, modulo a bit of confusion and sloppy terminology. It appears to be as close to the truth as we are going to get in a situation like this.
Re:TPM is not DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
That is completely wrong. Read what Seth Schoen of the EFF wrote two weeks ago about Microsoft's
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Anyone got troll spray, they're still around. I'm hoping they won't breed.
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Gotta love sessions and time-outs for the many ways they can be used to prevent deep linking.
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
For the curious then: http://www.apple.com/macmini/ [apple.com]
Available in different configs for -
499 USD
599 USD
699 USD
Apple isn't expensive for basic units anymore.
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
While you can claim the mac have style, good looks and ease of use etc. To those of us who want the most power, macs are overpriced. It's not trolling to say so since most slashdot users can get on fine with harder to use UI (or command promt) and an ugly box under the desk.
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Now spec out a PC that offers the same functionality.
Oh, you could get a faster PC, but it would have less in it (airport/bluetooth etc) and be much larger and noisier.
The Macmini is a small, silent, reliable and stylish box. You PC you'll spec out, if it can match the price, will not be.
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Admittedly I may be biased since I live in South Africa. If I take the US prices for mac mini's and multiply by our exchange rate, I'd get +-R3200 for the mac mini. At that price, I'd buy one.
Buying the cheapest mac mini from apple in this country will put me back R4799 (+- $738) [apple.com]. Yet, our PC prices are much more in line with the exchange rate, a PC that costs $499 in the US would probably only put me back R3500 here.
So sorry, I am basing it on what prices I pay, and it does seem that in the US things
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Well, since being able to do anything has no weight at all (an ability is not a physical thing!), it's weight in gold is worth absolutely nothing
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
As I've posted before it's merely convenience.
It is very easy to write a WebObjects app that does everything with what are called "component actions". Even if one were to store the Session id in a cookie (wosid) it still wouldn't provide linkable URLs because performing the exact same action multiple times results in a different URL (a number is incremented each time).
To implement deep linkable URLs one would have to implement Direct Actions; doable so long as you are okay with doing things depending on
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Gotta love sessions and time-outs for the many ways they can be used to prevent deep linking.
You mean linking, right? Or did my sarcasm-meter miss anything?
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
( I love my Powerbook, btw )
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
In retrospect maybe I should have left it off the list, cause alot of folks seem to have taken offense. But I like to dream.
They took care of that (Score:5, Interesting)
$499 gets you a mac mini that has basically the same specs as my 15 month old powerbook. 512MB, 1.25 GHz G4. No, Apple doesn't compete with whitebox selling-out-of-my-trunk "vendors" on pricewatch.
Re:They took care of that (Score:2)
Re:They took care of that (Score:2)
I'd gladly buy a Sempron based system [which also runs cool and quiet... the 3000+ idles at roughly 5C over ambient with a 800RPM fan] in a mini-itx case or something.
I doubt it's cheaper and frankly the "openness" is worth any additional costs.
The Sempron 3000+ 754-pin chip is a 1.8Ghz 128KB L2 Athlon that is very low power but way more than fast enough to serve [for example] as a media box.
Tom
Re:They took care of that (Score:2)
Note that you have an 800rpm fan going... I have no fan going. Your case is 6" x 6" x 12", mine is 6" x 6" x2". And finally note that I've got mine from a decent vendor with support that beats the entire industry.
Re:They took care of that (Score:2)
All of them, once you do to them what they deserve - put them in a trash compactor. No noise, no power consumption, and fits in a 4" cube. ;)
I'll give you price (Score:3, Insightful)
Fucking McAfee VirusScan.
I have no antivirus software or antispyware software running on my G5 at
Re:I'll give you price (Score:3, Insightful)
Right.
Also, you can run windows "sans-AV". it's called "don't have services you don't need on" and "don't install software you don't trust".
And for the most part you can configure AV's not to do boot scans but just runtime scans.
So really you're bitching that your properly inconfigured totally turned off laptop [which probably has way slower disk, memory and processing than your DESKTOP G5] is slower to boot then your properly set up desktop
Re:I'll give you price (Score:2, Insightful)
You're comparing a fully shut down laptop to a G5 in suspend mode?
How about this, My G4 Powerbook boots in about 25 seconds, from a cold start, and it also responds instantly from sleep. My Toshiba Laptop on the other hand takes close to 2 minutes to boot, and takes about 50 seconds to wake from hibernate, and it weighs about 5 pounds more with a screen that has less than half as many pixils and shitty color.
Also, you can run windows "sans-AV". it's called "don't have services you don't ne
Re:I'll give you price (Score:2)
Re:I'll give you price (Score:3, Informative)
Whatever else you think, it cannot be argued that simply not needing the AV software is a big plus. I have the same situation (both a PC and a Mac on my desk) and I gotta tell you, he's right. Sure you can go and turn off all the services and crap in XP but you must know what you are doing (those service descriptions in the control panel really suck) but how long does that take? It's all moot on the Mac.
BTW, Mac OS X does not reall
Re:I'll give you price (Score:3, Insightful)
Grandparent poster said:
I have no antivirus software or antispyware software running on my G5 at home. Boots in under a minute. Logs in in 5-10 seconds. Sleeps instantly, wakes instantly.
Then you said:
You're comparing a fully shut down laptop to a G5 in suspend mode?
Then I replied:
He's comparing the fact that the G5 boots faster and sleeps/wakes faster.
And your answer:
I owned a MacMini for a day and I can tell you from off to fully working finder is not "seconds". It ta
Re:I'll give you price (Score:2)
I really dont have those problems on my gaming machines at home either. They run Windows 2k, and all of them actually boot in fairly good fashion. I don't have A/V or firewalls on the machines themselves, I kill off unnecessary autoloading systray apps in the regi
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
Uhh.. lemme guess.. when hell freezes over, pigs fly south for the winter and Osama hands himself in to the vegas vice squad in drag....
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
You get what you pay for. Some things are worth paying more money for. Would you gripe at Porsche for providing a superior sports car but setting the price well above a Honda Civic?
Seriously, get some perspective here.
Re:Apple's looking better each day... (Score:2)
I wouldn't gripe, but as a practical consumer, I'm still going to buy the Civic.
Re:Sticking feathers up your butt... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't worry... (Score:2)
A balance might be achieved, like in iTunes. DRM music that you can burn to CD and do anything you want with.
OK DRM is bad, but at least iTunes gives you an explicit way around, should you want it. Just about meets with the music industry requirements and fair use for the consumer - a tight rope walking act.
It's possible that this balancing act could continue when iFlicks (or whatever) comes in.
Re:This does not prove anything! (Score:2)
Re:Eat Crow (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? That's interesting, define what your 'real OS' is and exactly how it differs from OS X?
Why DRM is an issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's got very little to do with boot protection, and everything to do with the restrictions that Apple would have to impose on OS X to make the kind of strong DRM that Microsoft uses and promotes realistic.
If Apple were to meaningfully use DRM for more than boot protection, which is what is implied by the presence of a DRM chip and a TPM module in the kernel (because DRM is a re