This is exactly the computer I want Apple to make for me. I'm still very angry at Apple for giving me no other usable choice besides the iMac I was essentially forced to buy if I wanted to run OS X.
There's the mini, the pro, the macbook and the macbook pro.
Of the four alternatives, the most expandible are the Mac Pro and the MacBook Pro.
I think the issue is that all the development effort put into OSX is partially subsidized by the sales of hardware. The purchase of the OS X disk for $129 is assuming that at one point you purchased (or someone purchased if used) a Mac capable of running OS X, and part of that cost subsidized the effort put into making the OS you just purchased.
In some places, such subsidization is either illegal or considered bad faith (bad faith may void legal agreements)
As it turns out, this is a 1-man operation. More power to him, but I don't see him beating Apple's legal machinery. More than likely, he's hoping Apple woul just ignore him.
A. Single Use. ..[snip].. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
Ummm doesn't this jinx netboot solutions that are provided with OS X server (and OS X if you know what you're doing) and the like?!?! Shouldn't it be reworded in some way to reflect that making the software available over the network is allowed provided you have individual licenses to cover each 'Apple Branded' that will utilize said software over the network blah blah blah...
Quote:
you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
And taking this in its legal form (and we really have no choice but to do so)... Wouldn't turning on Apple file sharing on ANY mac on a home network (where you have other Macs) be a violation of the EULA?!?!
News Flash: In an unprecedented move Apple sues nearly it's entire customer base today (including it's own retail stores) for blatant violation of it's EULA! The reason given was due to the fact that they turned on Apple File Sharing (a feature that Apple itself provided).
**OR**
Is it 'okay' to over look THAT clause and if so then what OTHER clauses is it okay to overlook?!?!
Comments
This is exactly the computer I want Apple to make for me. I'm still very angry at Apple for giving me no other usable choice besides the iMac I was essentially forced to buy if I wanted to run OS X.
There's the mini, the pro, the macbook and the macbook pro.
Of the four alternatives, the most expandible are the Mac Pro and the MacBook Pro.
There's the mini, the pro, the macbook and the macbook pro.
Of the four alternatives, the most expandible are the Mac Pro and the MacBook Pro.
None of those choices are a mid-priced, mid-sized tower.
I think the issue is that all the development effort put into OSX is partially subsidized by the sales of hardware. The purchase of the OS X disk for $129 is assuming that at one point you purchased (or someone purchased if used) a Mac capable of running OS X, and part of that cost subsidized the effort put into making the OS you just purchased.
In some places, such subsidization is either illegal or considered bad faith (bad faith may void legal agreements)
As it turns out, this is a 1-man operation. More power to him, but I don't see him beating Apple's legal machinery. More than likely, he's hoping Apple woul just ignore him.
In some places, such subsidization is either illegal or considered bad faith (bad faith may void legal agreements)
No, its not. All OSX's are in effect upgrades since they are meant to run only on Macs that all shipped with OSX to begin with (or MacOS).
I'd say that's 100% likely.
From the EULA for Leopard:
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. ..[snip].. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
Ummm doesn't this jinx netboot solutions that are provided with OS X server (and OS X if you know what you're doing) and the like?!?! Shouldn't it be reworded in some way to reflect that making the software available over the network is allowed provided you have individual licenses to cover each 'Apple Branded' that will utilize said software over the network blah blah blah...
you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
And taking this in its legal form (and we really have no choice but to do so)... Wouldn't turning on Apple file sharing on ANY mac on a home network (where you have other Macs) be a violation of the EULA?!?!
News Flash: In an unprecedented move Apple sues nearly it's entire customer base today (including it's own retail stores) for blatant violation of it's EULA! The reason given was due to the fact that they turned on Apple File Sharing (a feature that Apple itself provided).
**OR**
Is it 'okay' to over look THAT clause and if so then what OTHER clauses is it okay to overlook?!?!
Dave
Interesting if you go to the more information and look at the options, the site lists Linix, XP, Vista and Leopard. I still wonder if this is a hoax.