Apple Still Says No To Aqua-Like Themes 589
JoFo writes: "Eric Yang, creator of several Aqua-like themes and skins for GTK+, KDE, Mozilla, gkrellm, and others, was forced by Apple to take down all Aqua-related projects on his web site. It appears they went to his employer as a way to strong-arm him. He writes on his web site 'I went to Apple to test cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell. They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to shut down my project. Isn't that ironic?'" Apple seems at least to be consistent in objecting to nearly any non-Apple project that reminds the company of Aqua, so maybe this was just a matter of time.
sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Aqua is not the only thing they have going for them in Mac OS X(.1), but it's a big thing; it's what differentiaates them from MS in screenshots, etc. If any system can look like theirs, they lose out. I know it's nice, I'd like it on my Linux desktop as well, but it's Apple's property and this is their right, so let's not act too surprised that they try and stop it.
Let us, however, ignore that Be never cared, QNX doesn't care, and MS really, really doesn't care (it probably even makes them laugh when a Linux WM has a Windows theme). Apple is 'special' in that they have to keep their lawyers fed or they start to go ambulance chasing when they get bored.
Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are ripping off the actual icon files then that's one thing. But making something very similar, though not identical, seems like another look and feel issue.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:2)
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:3, Informative)
Considering that case was up and down in the courts for years, it looks like nobody's going to beat them soon.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:5, Informative)
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act became effective in January of 1996. Apple lost it's "look and feel" case before that, I believe it was 1995.
Of course, had The Federal Trademark Dilution Act been in effect in 1984, Apple probably wouldn't be called Apple any more, since they would have lost the trademark dispute against Apple Records.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple settled that trademark dispute. They paid Apple Records lots of cash. This is all well and good.
They lost their "look and feel" case, but Microsoft had not bit-for-bit copied any of their artwork. Using identical key-commands is one thing. Using someone else's bitmaps is another. This is also all well and good.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple settled that trademark dispute. They paid Apple Records lots of cash. This is all well and good.
They paid Apple Records lots of cash only because they broke the original agreement, and went into the music industry. They wouldn't have had that "lots of cash" back in 1981, when they were originally sued, and with the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, it doesn't matter if you are in competition or not.
They lost their "look and feel" case, but Microsoft had not bit-for-bit copied any of their artwork. Using identical key-commands is one thing. Using someone else's bitmaps is another.
They lost their "look and feel" case because they sued over copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. Trademark infringement at the time of that case was based on "a likelihood of confusion". No one was going to confuse a Mac for Windows, they were clearly told what they were buying when they bought it, so the trademark law (at the time) did not apply. Also, trademark infringement cannot apply to functional aspects, such as key-commands would likely be considered. Functional aspects are the sole domain of patent law, and patent law is subjected to many more restrictions (for instance the limited time provision).
All of this changed in 1996. I suggest you read the Federal Dilution Trademark Law and see for yourself. I've linked it elsewhere or you can search on Google. This country made it 220 years without that stupid law. Anyone who argues it's necessary is seriously deluding themselves.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, as fare as I know, Apple Corp (that was founded by the Beatles in 1968) sued Apple Computer.
I'm almost positive that Apple Records was fully owned by Apple Corps, Ltd. See here [about.com] for more information. But yeah, it would be the Corp which did the actual suing.
The case ended in a settlement where Apple Computer payed something between $25 million - $30 million and had to agree to stay out of the music business.
According to a number of sites I've read, including this one [mercurycenter.com], the original settlement, for "an undisclosed amount" (probably very small), had the stipulation that Apple Computer could not be used for music purposes. In 1989 Apple Corps sued Apple Computer for breaching that contract. That was settled for somewhere in the $30 million range. If the Federal Trademark Dilution Act [ladas.com] had been in effect in 1981 (sorry, not 1984), Apple Computer would have been in a much more precarious legal situation, and would likely not have been able to reach a settlement (I doubt they had $30 million at that time).
AFAIK, Apple Computer is no longer barred from going into the music industry. They certainly breached their original settlement by this point, it's quite easy to use the Macintosh as a low budget recording studio, probably with about as much quality as the Beatles had back in 1981.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Very different. Apple lost because they signed a bad license with MS and it was ruled that Apple had licensed their look and feel to MS. Not many people know, as part of the IE budle/investment agreement, MS had to pay Billions (it's unknown, but that is what Apple claimed MS owed them) in back payments to Apple for licenses and as far as I know is still paying Apple to this day.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft bought $120 Million in non-voting shares, promised to port Office and IE for awhile, and Apple said they'd make IE Mac OS's default browser.
Apple didn't need the money (they have a few billion in the bank themselves), they just needed to show investors that Microsoft wasn't going to kill them. Microsoft got to keep some competition around, which was helpful during their little stay in court.
Since then, IE has won the browser war, Apple is in a great (for them) position in the market, Mac OS X is out and growing strong, and Microsoft has not split and has quietly sold that $120mil of non-voting shares.
Billions in secret back payments? It's a nice story, but no.
Re:Do themes =~ look and feel? (Score:4, Informative)
This skin issue is different; nobody's licensed the look & feel from apple.
Apple will defend its territory (Score:5, Insightful)
If you see a PC across the room, you barely notice it. If you see a Mac across a room, you notice. Nothing else looks like an iMac, a G3/G4 tower, an iBook, etc. Apple wants to be visible, and that makes sense.
The same goes for Aqua. Aqua looks like nothing else - and Apple wants to keep it that way. If Aqua themes became popular, then screenshots from Apple computers would not stand out as much - and therefore, Apple would not burn itself into peoples heads nearly as clearly.
Re:Apple will defend its territory (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we justifiy the general and wide reaching oppression that is a 'look and feel' copyright simply because Apple wants it this way to maximize their mind-control (advertising) methods?
I dont feel it is reasonable, with this 'look and feel' logic, we can grant ourselves monopolies on seeminlgy mundane objects and copyright their look and feel... present Plutocratic interests aside, where is the reason in this? Has capitalism begun the big-crunch where the barrier to entry is so unbelievably high that the present powers that be will simply buy and sell new enterprises and legislate the rest into oblivion?
If i were American Id be very scared for the future.
Because Im Canadian Im very scared that my own country cannot resist the empty and shallow influence from from the empire to the south...
Re:sigh (Score:3, Informative)
Trolltech has a perfect Aqua theme for their QT Mac version that Apple let them make. It could simply be recompiled for any platform, but Apple won't let them for obvious reasons and no one else has the source so the Aqua look is still restricted to OS X. Mozilla doesn't get anything of the kind. I don't even know if it's possible to make such a platform-dependent Mozilla theme.
I have to say I sort of see Apple's point with the other themes though. An Aqua KDE theme would infringe on their IP. I just wish they would let a Mac port of Mozilla have a Mac look.
Re:sigh (Score:5, Informative)
Oh give me a break. If there's that much demand for an Aqua look-and-feel "theme" for Mozilla then somebody will put in the time to add native Quartz calls [mozilla.org] to Mozilla. Adding a silly "theme" is not the way to do this when it's on the native platform of Aqua. Besides, how would you do transparencies with a theme? An Aqua "theme" would be a hack for these purposes.
If Mozilla were changed to use native aqua screen widgets, then the only thing needed to make it look like it "fits in" is a very simple theme for the menubar buttons -- a theme that Apple wouldn't complain about at all and it would be 100% original artwork.
- j
Re:sigh (Score:2)
- j
Re:sigh (Score:2, Interesting)
This has led to wonders such as OpenVMS and OS/2 ports, but at the cost of it being slow and ugly everywhere else.
Never going to happen (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla is no different and was primarily motivated to go XP because native widgets couldn't do what the CSS specs demanded and that it was next to impossible to produce an decent XP frontend around them. And while this has lead to a few speed bumps on the way, it's turned out to be a good thing. The vast majority of Mozilla is now totally cross-platform and skinnable and most of the time you'd never know you weren't using native widgets.
It is for this reason you'll never see Mozilla use native widgets again. There are some vestiges of native widget support still in CVS but it's so bit rotten it would never work. In fact the only way you'll ever see an Aqua Mozilla is if:
Either option is quite likely to happen at some point. I don't see why Apple would get funny if Mozilla had an "official" aqua like theme just as IE does.
Design *copyright*? (Score:3, Informative)
You can *trademark* certain symbols, phrases, or whatever that help differentiate your product, but I sincerely doubt that you can trademark an entire look and feel. For instance, if the theme developers used the Apple logo in their themes that would obviously be trademark infringement.
But if they just make green red and amber buttons, and themes that look like Apple themes I think they have some ground to stand on. Pontiac can make their cars look like Ford cars if they want, but they can't put Ford's logo on them. And these themes aren't even being sold.
I'm not saying that Apple is behaving like an evil dictator or anything, only that it's not a black and white case.
This is silly (Score:3, Funny)
Just name it something else already.
If you get into trouble, throw some prior work, like your favorite drinking glass into evidence.
why is this such a big deal? (Score:4, Flamebait)
Of all things to fight about, it seems that the appearance of a desktop should be the least of our worries. If Apple wants to keep their Aqua desktop to themselves, fine. Let's be creative and make something better. There are many themes out there that rival Apple in functionality and appearance.
Re:why is this such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I am not upset about anybody "wanting" anything. (It's a free country, you can want whatever you feel like wanting.) I am upset about archaic intellectual property laws and the level of corporate control over our society.
Is he suprised he didn't get paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am kind of peeved at apple not allowing themes. Maybe they're just holding back on their own theming system for sometime before Macrh 23rd of next year. I guess they're philosophy makes sense: they want people to look at a Mac OS X machine and know for sure that it's a Mac OS X machine. Plus, if it's a theming system not from apple, future updates could hose the system over (The move from 10.0.4 to 10.1 to one
F-bacher
Share and enjoy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is he suprised he didn't get paid?
As I understood his comments, he was only pointing it out that Apple is all to happy to take input from the community, but doesn't allow the same community the freedom of artistic expression.
Re:Share and enjoy ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is he suprised he didn't get paid? (Score:4, Informative)
A big problem that became evident with themes on Mac OS 8 and 9 (and maybe soon on Windows XP) is that they break really easily when you have a large and diverse GUI application platform that already exists before you start skinning the OS. Out of any ten Mac apps, you would find one or two of them wouldn't skin right because they had custom UI elements or design elements that were meant to go with the default look. I heard that Microsoft was trying to drop themes from Windows XP for this reason, but they are in there in some limited fashion, apparently.
The Aqua guidelines warn application developers not to assume that the GUI will always look like it does now, so Apple is trying to keep their options open for later. Maybe for Aqua II, and maybe for themes. With all the work they've done for Mac OS X, I think they probably could live with the idea of putting themes on hold for a while. Mac OS 8 was on the cutting-edge of skinning interfaces, but it also got to see a lot of the problems with the process. Mac OS X version 11 might be the place to work that shit out. They can sell a journaling file system to pros and themes to consumers and kids.
The brand, the law, and the individual. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if a collection of friends decide to create an Aqua-like theme and distribute it, what's that to prevent Microsoft from doing the same?
Clearly Apple is in competition with Microsoft, and it doesn't have any particular desire to permit Microsoft to make use of it's so-called user interface innovations.
Apple clearly built the Aqua theme, and spent a lot of time and money developing it into something that Apple hopes to be a brand-identifier. For a 3rd party to create a very similar branding, and then release it in such a way that Microsoft could use it flys in the face of why Apple developed the interface to begin with: To outpace Microsoft in interface design.
So although I feel for the individuals who have spent so much effort to clone the Aqua interface, it is also easy to appreciate Apple's stance on this issue.
Microsoft's Luna is sort of a Rip of Apple's Aqua (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing. Microsoft has already done this, in a way. The user interface for windows XP (called Luna) seems to take a lot of inspiration from Mac OS X without directly copying it.
And look at this shot. [apple.com] of Mac OS X:
Now look at these shots [brighthand.com] of the next version of windows CE (Pocket PC 2002).
Notice any similarities in the upper right of the screen?
As to whether this is legal (or would be if MS didn't happen to have billions of dollars), IANAL.
Re:Microsoft's Luna is sort of a Rip of Apple's Aq (Score:3, Interesting)
> at the Mac OS screenshot? All I see is a blank
> square.
It's an interactive QuickTime movie, not a still image. You need QuickTime Player for Mac OS or Windows. There are still shots of Aqua on Apple's site as well.
(QuickTime is the Unix of multimedia, man
The top-right of Pocket Windows is just a re-implementation of the Windows taskbar and its System Tray, but put up on the top of the screen, where it reminds one of the Mac's Menubar and System Menus. The menubar in Mac OS X just looks like a prettier, more colorful menubar from previous Mac OS versions (same clock, same system menus).
I agree that Windows XP looks a little too much like Mac OS X, though. I don't mind that, but I thought that naming the Windows XP interface "Luna" was about the weakest and most lame thing I had ever heard. Aqua, introduced in January 2000, and it's ugly step-sister Luna, barfed up in mid-2001. Sad. They are named like they are two products from the same company, which I guess is Microsoft's idea of innovation and competition. I think they should at least pretend to be original. The number of eye-rolls I saw when "Microsoft Luna" was announced!
Microsoft also copied the multiple Login panel from Mac OS 9 for Windows XP, and that would have been fine, too, except that they used the exact same rubber ducky picture as one of the user icons. I mean, there are only a handful of default user icons (the user is meant to drag in their own pictures, at least in the Mac version)
same lame excuse (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the same lame excuse that comes up again and again, and it's false. If Apple claims protection under trademark law, yes, they need to enforce their trademark, but they can still license it to whoever they want to. If Apple claims protection under copyright law, they can enforce as selectively as they like without losing their copyright.
Whether Apple actually has rights under either trademark or copyright law to gumdrop-based, colorful interfaces really has never been tested. So far, it's all just hot air and lots of expensive lawyers.
Re:The brand, the law, and the individual. (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't stress that enough. Deciding not to prosecute a copy right cast does not in any way constitute a forgoance of that copyright. Example, if I rip the Terminator 2 DVD and distribute it to my five best buds in the world and MGM decides that it's really not worth sueing me over five copies of a DVD, that does not mean that MGM no longer has a leg to stand on in suits against online distributors of pirated video.
Re:The brand, the law, and the individual. (Score:3, Insightful)
You hit the nail right on the head. That is the real reason Apple has to go after the unpaid developers of free, open source copies of their look and feel. Apple doesn't give two hoots about whether or not a few hundred people running Linux have a desktop reminiscent of Aqua. They don't even care if a few thousand Windows users do. They are trying to protect against the precedent, to prevent Microsoft from copying every good thing they do and using it against them in the market.
It isn't about right or wrong -- and sorry, it isn't about Eric Yang's free clone. It is about Apple defending its IP against a real competitor.
Interesting points to consider though:
Could Apple have negotiated a license with Eric? Legally, they have to defend their copyright each and every time, but that doesn't stop them from signing a deal with Eric. Granted, it would be hard to justify why they would pay good money to their lawyers to draft that agreement (because Eric can't/wouldn't pay for it).
Seeing as Apple is being propped up by Microsoft anyway (the $150M bailout, still bothering writing office and IE for the Mac, etc.) simply to make things look less like a monopoly, would MS have actually wanted to copy Aqua if that would caused some of the remaining niche handful to migrate to XP?
Or is Apple actually being mindful of how Linux is eroding the MacOS/MacOSX marketshare? (It may not be, of course, I'm speculating).
Well- let's complain! (Score:2, Insightful)
The more people who are familar with the Aqua theme the more people will admire it and the more people who will purchase OSX or an Apple product to run it on. The more people who see Aqua, the more people will realize how truly lame Microsoft Windows has become.
We users of Linux are not the enemy. It's our nature as evolutionists to adapt what is superior and advantageous and disgard what is not. We spread the word, we improve the breed. We also turn vicously and persistently against those who oppose this natural way. Their legal actions can't change nature, they can only create ill will.
I hope someone outside the US will take up the Aqua bandwagon and propagate the theme. It's beautiful.
Re:Well- let's complain! (Score:3)
F-bacher
Qt/Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
While I have suspected Qt/Mac will not be GPL for other reasons, I believe this is a really strong reason as to why it won't be. If it were GPL, then any coder could just snag the style and compile with X11. Why mess with pixmap styles when you have close to the real-deal as a rendering engine?
Re:Qt/Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
Q. When Qt comes to Mac will Linux and Windows users be able to use the Aqua theme?
A. No, they will not be able to. Apple is very protective of the Aqua design, so we will not be implementing it on other platforms. Apple has offered their help to promote Qt/Mac, and we don't feel that going against their wishes will help them or us.
Honestly, I don't get why free software enthusiasts aren't embarassed to keep whining about this. Apple created this, let them have it. Either come up with something better or stop snickering about Microsoft and 'innovation'.
Re:Qt/Mac (Score:2)
Never a truer word. And make it faster, for gods' sake. I'm sitting here using KDE on a P3-933 with 128Mb and it's a dog. Fast enough, sure, but still a dog.
Dave
Apple's stance is justified (Score:2, Redundant)
-sting3r
Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Ferrari is NOT the only company that can paint its cars red.
There are limits to claiming 'themes' as a trademark.
KFG
Re:Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:2)
Re:Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:2)
Guess who owns Ferrari? Guess who STILL isn't the only car company that can paint its cars red? Any shade of red.
There are limits to trademarkability.
For instance, there are cars other than Ferrari that use a horse as their logo. Even a prancing one. Ferrari can't do a damn thing about it.
This is not the same thing as saying that certain things cannot be *claimed* as a trademark, and prosecuted as such. This is essentially what Apple is doing, despite having lost such a case in court themselves.
KFG
Re:Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:2)
The color of red that Ferrari uses in their paint at the most is enforceable with a set of legal agreements with their suppliers. If you want to supply paint to Ferrari and their dealers/shops, you've got to agree not to sell that same color to anyone else.
It has the same force as any other contract. If the supplier thinks that they can sell a lot of paint to other people, enough to pay for the legal costs of breaking the Ferrari contract and losing their business, then they will do that.
Re:Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck prosecuting people who "steal" your ip. Even if the red is the only board that previously existed with the "exact shade."
IP is only ip to the extent that it can be effectively protected. That is lesson number one in the ip "biz."
What you CAN do is define a logo that contains the words "Ferrari Red" and copyright, and trademark * THAT LOGO.* The copyright on the logo confers no protections whatsoever on the words contained within that logo, nor on the color they refer to. So, you can only buy "Ferrari Red" paint from Ferrari because Ferrari controls the name *Ferrari*, and thus the paint name and logo, not because they control the actual light wavelength reflected by the paint.
This is precisely the reason there are so many doofy names for colors. You *cannot protect the color.* So you make up a NAME for it you can protect.
And of course there is the fact that there is really no such thing as Ferrari Red in the first place. Ferrari has used literally dozens of different shades of red. There is also the fact that Ferrari didn't even invent the phrase, and it was in widespread public use before Ferrari ever used it. It was, in fact, forced on them through public use. Prior art.
You are also, of course, aware that virtually every Ferrari, even those painted the *same* color, are in fact different colors? What is the *exact* shade of "Ferrari Red"? How is it defined? How is its use defended when it isn't true that it can only be obtained from authorized Ferrari repairers because any dumb schlub at the paint store can simply mix up unlimited supplies of it for you? You can do it yourself on your desktop if you wish.
Are you even begining to get my point, which was *there are limits to trademarkability?*
What's more, a trademark or copyright *does not* confer title. This is perhaps the most misunderstood part of this branch of ip law. In truth *title* can only be granted by a JUDGE reviewing the facts of a particular challange.
Ferrari *owns* the shape of its cars because a JUDGE, reviewing an actual case has *said so.*
Oh, it was an American judge by the way, thus in truth Ferrari only owns the shape of its cars in America and those countries that will respect that American decision.
Trademark and copyright are not the same as registering your car. The fact of the matter is that you can have copyright and trademark certificates in hand and STILL not have the rights they seem to confer on you.
KFG
Re:Ferrari is the only company. . . (Score:3, Informative)
A trademark or, more generally, a "mark," is anything that identifies and distinguishes a product and/or service. Marks used in connection with services are often called "service marks." A mark can consist of words, phrases, numbers or designs. In some cases, product configurations, consistent themes of products, the appearance of labels or packaging, animated sequences, colors, sounds or even smells can function as marks. The appearance of product packaging or the configuration of the product itself is called the "trade dress."
look, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it's not reality. companies can and do copyright colors.
IANAL
Re:11th ACR (Score:3, Insightful)
There is also the fact that Ferrari's logo has always been considered a bit on the weak side legally, at least with regards to the horse.
You see, that horse isn't Ferrari's invention, he took it from an insignia of an Italian fighter squadron in the first place.
Again, nicely illustrating my point that the ablility to trademark themes has its limits.
KFG
End of an era, things are ever changing... (Score:3, Troll)
Apple has changed, Apple is no longer the company it once was. Aside from the fruit-shaped logo and the menubar running across the top of the screen, Apple Computer is pretty much a modern consumerish NeXT. I've used Apple machines since my former job bought a small group of Lisas in 1983. While I mainly used Amiga and Windows machines at home, I had grown to love the Mac and it's various shaped beigeish gray enclosures. Over the years Apple had made one hellofa a platform. By 1992 we were using Quadra 950 and 800 machines stuffed full of ram, video and graphics nubus cards, and all sorts of wild accelerators. The MacOS (System 7.1 at the time) had no problem with our multiple monitors or our 640x480@30fps streams of mjpeg compressed video. Color correction, TrueType fonts, postscript, ethernet networking (both TCP/IP and AppleTalk/Ethertalk) worked great right out of the box. Macs in that era were ungodly expensive and worth every penny. Perhaps they still are today, though in a slightly different way.
Then came 1993 when Apple start seeding their early PowerPC machines, and eventually began selling them in 1994. Apple forgot how to make great hardware. They began to rely on the CPU to do everything. Sure the PowerPC had some great oomph, but it alone could not make up for poor design elsewhere. Luckily, the second generation of PowerPC based macs in 1995 (7500, 7600, 8500, 9500) were **very** improved, yet still nothing like the Quadras were back in their day. Eventually the third generation (G3) of Macs shipped, first in beigish gray boxes and later in the funky blue&white swing-down enclosure. By now Apple was bring back the performance, incorporating USB and Firewire. But what they had was nothing much more than a modern PC with a different CPU and OS. The G4 machines with their mighty PowerPC 74X0 CPUs have allowed us to do some pretty exciting things with the CPU alone, but again, it's nothing too special.
So what has Apple done to differentiate itself? When Steve Jobs returned he and his gang of NeXT thugs took the marketing and software angle. They introduced a funky new interface that looked nothing like MacOS, NeXTstep, or Windows. They created some cool consumer and pro apps (iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro) that made use of the G4 architecture and other features of their machines. They've also become far more mainstream with their retail stores, online ordering, and strict warranty policies.
It comes to me as no shock that Apple wants to defend it's GUI look-and-feel. I love the Macs I use at work, but to be honest, Apple is always on the brink of disaster. Consider the following: PC makers, along with motherboard designers integrate more cutting edge features that ever, and do so with great stability and success. Software makers, especially Microsoft, cater to both the newbie while still offering powerful professional features (much like FontSync and ColorSync) all while maintaining tight integration with said PC makers. Drop the price a bit, woo some users. Build some cool enclosures that both look nice and are a dream to work with. Boom. No more need for Apple.
If you think about it, this is already happening. And fast. As every month ticks by, Apple has to work harder, better, and faster to keep up. It should be no surprise that Apple wants to defend one of the very things that differentiates itself from the commodity Wintel PC market.
Apple has done some great things over the past 25 years, perhaps more so than any other company short of maybe SiliconGraphics and IBM. I applaud their efforts and love working with their products. I also wish them the best.
Parallel Universe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's the one with $4.2 billion in the bank, who has laid off a total of 50 people since the PC industry downturn, and (with one exception) has profitable every quarter since Q1 1998. Contrast this to all the mass layoffs throughout the industry. There is tremendous value in the company.
PC makers, along with motherboard designers integrate more cutting edge features that ever, and do so with great stability and success
Stability? Which industry are you talking about? Certainly not the one with Gateway, Compaq, VA and HP in it.
Apple has some of the best hardware overall in the industry. The were the first to ship DVD-R, first with built-in wireless antennas, first (and only, as far as I can tell) with gigabit ethernet standard on desktop hardware, and the legacy-free aspect of the iMac certainly drove USB acceptance. Their machines are quite energy efficient, and in some cases, fanless. Their towers are the easiest to manipulate of any manufacturer I've seen. There are weak spots, like the bus speed, but there is plenty to appreciate as well.
Software makers, especially Microsoft, cater to both the newbie while still offering powerful professional features (much like FontSync and ColorSync) all while maintaining tight integration with said PC makers
Tight intergration with PC makers? Is that intergration as in "include Netscape and we'll revoke your license" or as in "this driver keeps giving me error messages?"
Build some cool enclosures that both look nice and are a dream to work with. Boom. No more need for Apple.
It's just that simple, eh?
It should be no surprise that Apple wants to defend one of the very things that differentiates itself from the commodity Wintel PC market.
You're right, it's not. The legal system says Apple has to virgiously defend its ideas at every point along the way, or loses the right to do so later. I don't think Apple's really all that concerned about people buying a machine to run Linux instead of a Mac just because E has an Aqua theme.
But here's something else I'm wondering about -- why are people still creating Aqua themes? Apple has asked repeatedly for people to stop. Why does this continue? Surely theme creators can come up with something new. Why not just respect Apple's wishes? It's not like OpenSSH, where you need replication for compatibility reasons.
You don't even have to look at it from a legal perspective since they haven't actually sued anyone. What if somebody asked you to remove a desktop picture they created from your theme package? Wouldn't you do it? Is this all that different?
- Scott
AMEN! If you must skin Aqua, improve it (Score:3, Insightful)
apple passing up free advertising op. (Score:3)
On one hand, I can see how Apple might be a bit sensitive about people copying their look and feel, especially after loosing their Windows battle with Microsoft in the late 80's.
On the other hand, if Apple were smart, they'd parly the desire for Aqua themes into Mac sales. A simple and direct ad campaign, "why settle for a cheap immitation when you can have the real thing..."
Perhaps instead of shutting down Aqua themes, require that they include an icon and link back to Apple
Hmmm
Re:apple passing up free advertising op. (Score:2)
It's called 'trademark dilution.' Good intentions, tho.
Re:apple passing up free advertising op. (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny, I seem to remember a bunch of "Not just IBM Compatible, it IS IBM" campaigns from the 80's. If the effectiveness of this simple and direct ad can be guessed by their PC sales, it won't work.
The question that needs asked is: "Do the current Aqua-like themes use graphics taken from the real thing?" Apple can own the right the those images, the cool colored dots, window shade, check-boxes, et al. However they have no say if someone whips out GIMP or Photoshop and makes their own theme "inspired by" Aqua. If anything, this would be better for the end user; I like the colored dots, but the check boxes, dialog buttons, and radio buttons are annoying as all get out. In the mean time, I'll stick to the stock ShinyMetal theme for Enlightenment [enlightenment.org], one of the few true innovators in "look and feel". Who else has things like a slide out bar on the upper right of each window to hold the infrequently used options such as minimize-maximize?
Toodles
I don't know... (Score:2)
And since everyone in the open source 'movement' seems to believe that Apple supports them, why didn't Apple just offer to pay him for the project and make him one of their developers?
It's what I would have done.
Apple legal (Score:3, Funny)
Personally, I think Apple should sue Microsoft for stealing the rubber ducky and putting it in Windows XP! That's just SO WRONG!! it's Apple's ducky, and those punks at Microsoft think they can just horizontally flip it and call it theirs. It doesn't work that way! I'd go so far as to say the rubber ducky should be Apple's mascot.
Wait. I think I heard from somewhere that Microsoft did remove the rubber ducky. Any truth to this?
Why the Mozilla theme? (Score:2)
Re:Why the Mozilla theme? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mozilla CAN look like an OS X app, they just have to do it the right way, instead of some kludged theme that probably won't even be able to use transparency and other features of the OS.
Re:Why the Mozilla theme? (Score:4, Informative)
* HTML4 requires that you be able to make listboxes with a tree image in the background. How would you do that on Windows, where you don't have access to the widget code? Mozilla would be forced to use the common subset of what each OS's listbox provides, which would be a very limited listbox.
* Native widgets sometimes have subtle restrictions. For example, Windows 98 will become unstable if you create several hundred native listboxes. (It usually doesn't crash, but toolbars will stop appearing in new windows; I consider that to be instability.) Internet Explorer suffers from this problem every time I get mod points on Slashdot, but open several top-level stories in different windows before I notice.
* Native widgets may have less subtle restrictions, such as limits on the amount of text a textbox can contain.
Re:Why the Mozilla theme? (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope mozilla looks the same on most operating systems instead of taking "UI Feel" from where its working on. Less User Retraining for another God Damn GUI Toy.
Sosumi (Score:3, Funny)
SOSUMI
it's a logo, like everything else (Score:2)
Yes, I disagree with this, no car aficionado would mistake a junky hundai with a mercedes hood ornament *coughlinuxcough* for the real thing, but the "rest" of the population(the unwashed slobs) wouldn't know better. That's how I see the whole OS X UI debacle.
Next time, make a contract. (Score:4, Troll)
No, Eric Yang, it is not ironic. What it is going on is very simple. You are unilaterally, and retroactively, trying to impose some sort of bargain, agreement or understanding upon Apple. One that that they had no prior notice of, much less agreed to in advance.
When you, Eric Yang, tested cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell, you did so without any prior expressed or even reasonably understood conditions, understandings, agreement, or contract. You gave a gift of your own free will. Apple had absolutely NO reasonable notice that you were doing your testing pursuant to your secret, unilateral, unexpressed subjective belief that if you did such work, you could "of course" help yourself to the intellectual property embodied in Apple's themes.
The solution next time is quite simple. Be honest and up-front. Contact Apple before you do the work and offer an explicit, clearly express contract: "I will do 'X' if you let me do 'Y.'" If Apple refuses your offer, then simply do not do the work.
What you should not do is give a gift -- or what every reasonable person would construe as a gift -- of service while holding a secret, undisclosed, subjective, unilateral understanding that the "gift" is in fact conditional, and then whine and complain when your previously undisclosed condition has not been satisfied.
Irony? No. (Score:2, Funny)
> and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell.
> They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to
> shut down my project. Isn't that ironic?
If I babysit your kids a few times, is it okay for me to smack them around a bit also?
Whew, that was close. That car nearly killed you. I saved your life. Shall we go back to my apartment?
Irony? No. Misplaced entitlement? Yes.
Speaking as a UI designer (Score:5, Insightful)
Developers in general don't have to deal with criticism from VPs or C*Os about the validity of how their stored procedures are set up. You don't have to sit behind a one-way mirror and watch a user rip the result of the last 3 months of your life to shreds.
As far as Apple and Aqua goes, you have to realize what it is that Apple really sells. They provide a whole experience that spans hardware, software and everyhting else. They invested millions upon millions of dollars in developing Aqua so I don't think it's a big suprise when they see someone mucking with their stuff. I think they are less worried about "competition" than they are about their work being "diluted" and offered on a system that doesn't work as elegantly.
What is everyone's great desire to rip off Apple's look anyway? Make something better if you're the expert.
Apple can be beaten (Score:3, Informative)
You cannot copyright a "look" or a "Feel." Perhaps a "Feel" can be patented as it involves a process or a series of processes. But a non-specific look cannot be copyrighted.
First, I would take the approach that making these themes can be a form of satire and is protected speech. The expression can be as deep or twisted as you like.
But only specific works can be copyrighted. Simply making a gui "shiney, blue and semi-transparent-looking" shouldn't be considered enough. Prior to the creation of Mac's Apple, I am certain other artists have created graphics with shiney, blue and semi-transparent-looking things in their works in the past. If Apple can sue based on that amount of similarity, the surely people who created their art prior to Apple's Aqua can sue the hell out of Apple.
But there must be hundreds of cases where copyright suits were lost on the grounds that the work in question weren't similar enough or were protected speech. This attack on creativity and free speech should be defeated for the priciple alone.
Apple's lawyers are just trying to earn their pay and justify their jobs. I hold them blameless. Apple believes they are protecting their stockholders' interests. I can blame them only for their lack of conscience and good sense.
Thoughts?
Is Apple infringing nintendo? (Score:2)
The buttons in the Aqua theme look like Dr. Mario vitamin pills. Is Apple infringing nintendo's look and feel now?
Actually, the "Vitamins" game in the freepuzzlearena [rose-hulman.edu] package infringes both nintendo's patent 5,265,888 on the game of Dr. Mario (although non-infringing gameplay is also available, and the infringing gameplay can be compiled out) and Apple's trademark on clickable buttons that look like vitamin pills (the default theme; create others with the Allegro [sourceforge.net] Grabber).
On Windows, you just need binaries, themepaks, source [rose-hulman.edu], and this DLL [rose-hulman.edu]. On *N?X systems, you can recompile it from the source archive [rose-hulman.edu]; it requires the Allegro library [sourceforge.net].
Have fun stepping on the toes of big corporations!clone themes are useful ... (Score:3, Insightful)
this works well, and stops me hitting the window menu every time i try to close an app (or worse). they don't have to look identical, just so long as they work the same on the subconcious level we use switches on (what stops you having to think "which is the indicator switch" in your car).
ironically, now that i'm using the (unthemable) macos x, i am confused as all hell again because i'm used to macos 8.6. shite
apple should realise that user interface should be more flexible (and easy to restore, if you want to enforce consistency), and that there are legitimate reasons for using an aqua or macos workalike on a non-mac platform.
what's the best way to report improvements to apple for bugs and the like? i've got a call sheet here
Screw Apple (Score:2)
But, if I am that same paining and I am copying it a hundred times so that I can sell it and the only way I can make money off of it is by being unique and different; then can I tell you to put your painting off the wall and not give it to anyone?
Yes! Of course they can! Because I am a poor company and spent so much money on my own paintings and if I allow you to paint something similar, I would not make as much money as I could have (also known as "losing money" in business speak) so of course I have this right!
Truth is, there is no ethical reason for taking this project down. It seems that the guy is having problems through his employer...well, that sucks.
So what do I say to do about it? Screw them. Stick the whole thing on freenet and tell people where to get it. Put it on newsgroups and get people to mirror it if they want to risk it.
What we do on our free time is our business and screw the intellectual property laws. They don't have an ethical leg to stand on!
Double Standard (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't mean to start a holy war or anything, but after reading the majority of the posts thus far I'm confused. While I agree with most people on here, that Apple has a right to defend its design from being copied, is there a double standard here between Apple and Microsoft? I just can't understand why when Microsoft does something like this it's the "Evil Empire" but when Apple does the same it's defended by the community. Then again, I guess I shouldn't try to understand the mindset of a group of people that post goat sex links and racist jokes more than anything else.
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
Nobody's been threatened by MS Lawyer(tm) for making a Windows-like GUI theme.
You're comparing Apples and... erm... Oranges?
Why are people pissed at Apple? (Score:4, Flamebait)
Microshaft stole thier implementation of Xerox's "desktop" operating system and ruined thier OS business.
Then a clone maker came along for IBM hardware and ruined the margin on making machines.
Apple has been screwed by others since the day computers became available to the people.
Regardless of my (or your) opinions of thier hardware, software, OSes, and so on, if you were Apple, would you not fight with every single fiber of you being to protect everything you could?
They are not going after people for money... they are simply saying "we made Aqua, at consideralbe expense (and again, I don't care what you think of it... it cost them heaps of money to develop) so please don't give it away to other platforms".
Windows XP, Linux, or whatever does not DESERVE a GUI as nice as Mac OS X. My mom can buy a crappy box with Win XP and be frustraed by it. Having an OS X look alike theme could amke her biased agiant Macs. My mom would have no f*ing clue how to use Linux, so if see ever had to use a machine with Linux installed, and it had an Aqua theme, she might think that So X was hard to use. I *did* buy my mom an iMac, and installed OS X on it. She damn well humps the machine she loves it so much.
So porting one is not only an infrigement of copyright, but just plain wrong as well.
Transmeta Image? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this a quiet way to rebel or is he just stoopid?
How sad--for Apple. (Score:3, Interesting)
In any case, it's not worth worrying about. Aqua looks slick, but there are lots of nice looking themes, many of them more usable than Aqua. Rather than trying to clone Aqua, perhaps it would be better to port more free themes to MacOS X and give it a fresh, non-Apple look.
HE USED THE APPLE LOGO! (Score:5, Informative)
Look and feel is ok, just don't use the TRADEMARKED logo.
Update (Score:4, Informative)
Want some cheese to go with that whine? [everything2.com] Didn't this guy steal all the widgets from Omniweb?
How much helping of writing a library did you do? Bug-fixes shouldn't count. I think Apple is great with developers in OS X, short of bringing out Steve Ballmer to chant it. I wouldn't expect Apple to lend a hand with Mozilla, they have not a lot of interest in it.
As for Mozilla with an Aqua UI - it's a great idea - check out http://sourceforge.net/projects/qbati2/ [sourceforge.net]
Theme.org, listen (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux doesn't deserve pretty themes (RANT) (Score:4, Informative)
UPDATE on this story (Friday) (Score:3, Informative)
Apple has apparently worked things out with Eric Yang, whom we earlier today reported was prevented from developing an Aqua front-end for Mozilla and Netscape [simweb.net]: "What Apple objected to was not Aquafying Mozilla, but rather the way I was doing it via emulation, thus not giving Mozilla users a pure Aqua experience. Apple is willing to provide information for creating real Aqua experience for Mozilla. Right now, my efforts are focused on an Aqua interface for Tenon's iTools, so work on Mozilla for the moment is in abeyance."
Re:In All Honesty... (Score:3, Insightful)
the aesthetic aspects of MacOS are it's best attributes.
Seriously, a lot of work goes into the UI design at apple, and it's a shame that it's constantly ripped off. Not just by free software people, and not just by Microsoft.
I think that free software people should spend time coming up with their own cool-looking interfaces (like a lot of the stuff on themes.org) and not just copy other UI's.
Re:In All Honesty... (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple has been given LIFE itself by people who share their work --work that is let's be honest, a shitlaod harder than the noodlings of Apple human interface designers-- and yet they turn around and send LAWYERS to E. Yangs employer to squash his homage to the Mac interface?
In all HONESTY, to hell with these fucking parasites.
Re:In All Honesty... (Score:2, Redundant)
but i guess that's why we have BSD v. GPL flamewars.
-sam
Re:In All Honesty... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sharing digital stuff is not a zero-sum game. BSD is the Compatibility Fairy, spreading compatibility around by providing core stuff that you can build anything around and it will still be able to talk to other stuff. BSD licensed stuff is meant to be used by everyone, that's the point.
The most compatible part of Windows is its BSD TCP/IP stack. Is it good that Microsoft "stole" that code? Imagine how much better the Web would be if IE for Windows used Gecko. Then we would really have a compatible Web, and the Internet Appliance market would probably have a chance because they could put Gecko on top of a BSD TCP/IP stack and the Web would still "look like the Web" to a Windows user, with the same rendering that they see on Windows. You'd be able to run a Gecko-based browser on BSD and a page would look the same as on Windows. In these kinds of common areas, code that everyone can share without restriction really benefits everybody.
Now, when it comes to the distinctive graphical look of a software product that is the only competitor to Microsoft Windows in many, many markets and is just about to have its mainstream coming-out
I'm not defending lawyers or anything, and I know the guy in this article is skinning X-Windows, not Windows, but a guy who skins Windows XP to look like Mac OS X is not helping the free software community. Compare the proprietary components in Windows XP to their open Mac OS X counterparts and tell me which one you want your local artists and musicians running, which one you want your Grandma running. Even the BIOS-equivalent on the Mac is an IEEE standard, called OpenFirmware, which is also used by Sun and which has the cutest little Penguin icon that it uses to show bootable Linux volumes.
By the way
So lemme see if I get your argument: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Apple's look and feel is pretty general, and there is tons of prior art for it. (pick your favorite shiny, transluscent, pretty image/skin)
2.
3.
4.
so that no one else can make a shiny transluscent pretty skin.
Re:So lemme see if I get your argument: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's an exact copy, then that's Apple's copyrighted property.
However, I do not think that they should ever be able to copyright things that are similar to what they do... that's way too general.
There is no prior art for an exact look, but only for the general look... and I'm only arguing about the exact one.
Is this theme an exact copy of the MacOS GUI (like I thought)... or just a general translucent-shiny (like the Liquid KDE theme)?
Re:In All Honesty... (Score:3)
It's no more shallow to try to protect their IP rights on Aqua than it is to spend the time to make all of these Aqua-ish themes for GTK+.
I've never heard someone defending skins by saying you shouldn't be shallow. It just doesn't make sense.
Re:In All Honesty... (Score:2, Funny)
You're right, it's not just a shame, but a travesty! These thieves have to be stopped. This aggression will not stand. What kind of worthless, sociopathic people would deliberately rip off important UI design elements from another compan...
Oh, wait.
We're talking about Apple, right?
Never mind.
Re:Um, excuse me, but . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Good business strategy: learn from past mistakes.
F-bacher
Re:Um, excuse me, but . . . (Score:4, Informative)
Um, no.
The judge did not say to Apple "you waited too long", nor any variation on that idea. First, the judge threw out Apple's claim that Apple could own a nebulous concept called "look and feel"; the judge required Apple to list specific items where MS had infringed. Then the judge went down the list, and struck out any item that was covered by Microsoft's agreement with Apple. (You know, the one where Apple agreed not to sue MS. Of course Apple did sue MS, one of the reasons I am not a fan of Apple.) Anyway, there were only 12 items on Apple's whole list that were not covered by the agreement; the judge then went down this list of 12 items and struck down all of those that Apple didn't own, which was 12: i.e. all of them. With literally nothing of Apple's case left, the judge ruled in favor of MS.
Now, when Xerox sued Apple for stealing, the judge did indeed rule "you waited too long".
Re:Um, excuse me, but . . . (Score:2)
Because theu did this retroactively. They let microsoft get away with several GUI rip offs for a couple of years, and then when apple went to the courts when they thought microsoft had gone too far, it was already too late to do anything about that.
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act didn't become effective until January 16, 1996. Until then it was legal to steal just about any GUI as long as it didn't cause a likelihood of confusion or deception. When the god-awful Dilution Act was passed, all of that changed.
Re:Um, excuse me, but . . . (Score:2, Informative)
Two key differences between these themes and MS:
1) Apple stupidly gave MS a license along with access to the GUI, and it was badly written enough to be construed as giving them some rights to substantially similar. (Bad lawyers are even worse than lawyers)
2) MS did not create an "Apple" look. They stole most of the features of the interface but didn't have square buttons with lines across the top of the window, as the old Apple interface had. It would have been an open-and-shut case had they done so.
So if this guy had a license and had created a theme that used bulbous buttons but didn't substantially replicate the Apple look, he would have been scott-free.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
If Ford made a car that looked exactly like a Honda except for the entirior mechanics, they'd get sued and rightfully so.
F-bacher
Re:What if BK sues Jack for similiar ChickenSandwi (Score:2)
It's not like you can patent the circle, but if you develop a multidimensional implementation of a mechanical device that utilizes circles, you've got something to claim IP over.
F-bacher
Re:What if BK sues Jack for similiar ChickenSandwi (Score:3, Insightful)
Folks, PLEASE HAVE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF IP LAW before acting like you know what you're talking about. This is a copyright issue, plain and simple. If Apple wants to defend the work of its artists, it's damn well able to do that.
I shudder to think of a world in which everybody can just copy anything they like without regard to the rights of the original author. I make a living writing software, and I'm pretty happy that nobody can just appropriate it and sell it as their own.
Re:Eric Yang, Sociopath? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think what he was poining out was that literally, for his help he should have expected gratitude (perhaps in the form of an email?) however in actuality his bug fix made apple more aware of his "activities" and they shut him down
This is a form of irony as the literal meaning is the opposite of the actual meaning
Re:Eric Yang, Sociopath? (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, I would think that misusing the word "sociopath" would be far more serious than misusing the word "ironic".
Re:Eric Yang, Sociopath? (Score:2, Funny)
Well, there should be. We can call it Gibson's Corollary to Godwin's Law.
Re:Eric Yang, Sociopath? (Score:2, Funny)
BAHAHAHAHAHA! You should have stopped while you were ahead.
-Legion
Re:Eric Yang, Sociopath? (Score:4, Funny)
Translation:
"...however, I am a card-carrying tool..."
Christ, I hate MENSA. There's nothing quite like a Smarter Than Everybody Else Club.
And this makes you qualified for...? (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't think so. I'm formally trained in niether psychology nor psychiatry, nor have I met Eric Yang; but I am a member of MENSA and a student of human behavior. I think I know a sociopath [slashdot.org] when I see one.
And DAMN you know how to pound your dick on the table to try and convince everyone you are right!
Being a student of behavior doesn't really make you any more qualified than anyone else to make the observation of if someone is a sociopath or not. And a MENSA membership doesn't qualify you either - which kinda makes me question your wisdom of posting that you are a MENSA member. Plus, anyway - 2% of the world can be a MENSA [mensa.org] member. If you would have said you were a IQuadrivium [s-2000.com] member, I might have been more impressed ;-) (only .1% of the world can qualify for that one. And there's ones with even more stringent restrictions on IQ - of course, there's certain problems with quantifying extremely high IQ's in the first place!)
In other words - please, if you are going to try and use something to prove your point, how about I dunno... use the wonderful ability to hyperlink to relavant information [psychnet-uk.com] instead of trying to turn this into an "I'm smarter than you" style contest. More people listen when relevant information is presented, while attempting to make people believe you have a bigger dick really doesn't do anything but make people scoff at you, and totally disreguard your statements completely.
What's really IRONIC (damned if I'm not havin' some fun now!) about this is that you've claimed Eric Yang to be a sociopath. However, you've already exhibited at least one sign of a sociopath [ncwc.edu] - excessive boasting. More likely than not based on your MENSA comment, you could also potentially have a second problem that's commonly exhibited: Grandiose sense of self-worth.
So quit callin' people names and flingin' terms when you think the ignorant masses don't really follow what you are saying. You might be surprised - a really large number of us are actually somewhat intellectual ourselves, and do know the definition and meaning of large words.
(Ok, I SWEAR - that's the only time I've ever used the term 'intellectual' attached to a group of people that includes myself. Sheesh.)
Re:This is why I'll lock my code out of OS/X (Score:3, Funny)
Is everyone so unoriginal that they can't come up with their own stuff? Do you have to copy someone else all the time, even after they've asked you not to?
Well too bad Xerox can sue thier ass for copying a window environment similar to thier own.
They tried, they lost.
This is why once my Multifli code gets out, I'll have a GPL, but I will lock it out of any use on OS/X.
Well hey, no one can stop you from being an idiot.
Also Why don't we design a theme that rivals Aqua,
Hey! There's an original idea!
copyleft it,
Sure, it's your decision (just like it's Apple's).
and make it illieagal for them to assimulate it.
They wouldn't be interested anyway.
Apples days are numbered anyway.
uhuh. Are you a financial analyst? You have some inside info you'd like to share?
I have a multiplatform environment at home. I've got
That's nice. Obviously you know what you're talking about since you have so many computer in such an impressive setup.
This box is much faster then the Apple G4 that I had on lone. My kernel compile times are less than half the time taken with the G4.
If I hadn't been so impressed with your knowledge of computers (based on that impressively long-winded description) this statement would normally indicate someone completely ignorant of CPU architecture. Someone with your impressive knowledge would have to know that the G4 is a RISC CPU, and that compilation for RISC architectures is significatantly more complicated than CISC CPUs. You see, the RISC architecture moves code optimization into the compiler, while CISC moves it onto the CPU. Consequently, compilation for RISC machines undergo more optimization cycles. But I'm sure you already knew that! You had to! I mean, you have a ethernet access to your mpeg player! If that's not an indication of expertise, I don't know what is. Well, besides an engineering degree like I have...
Yes the CPU speed is faster on the AMD
I'm glad you noticed that too.
And the 7200RPM hard drives aren't bad either.
Ya, I'm sure those would help a little. Just a LITTLE though.
So, go ahead apple. be a scrooge and put all your eforts into preventing others from using a simular desktop. What goes around comes around. You take from the Open Source movement and you don't reciprocate.
uhhuh [apple.com]
Well, I'm done. Have a nice day.