I have software like DRM Dumpster to remove the DRM in iTunes purchased tracks. I haven’t really used it yet — they require you use re-writable CDR-Ws and burn the disc once with all the protected music and then with DRM Dumpster convert to unprotected files and re-burn to disc. In future the unprotected versions of protected tracks must remain in the library with the protected tracks if the user chooses to still keep protected tracks in their library — they do this so in future DRM Dumpster will know what songs its already removed the DRM from and won’t make the mistake of re-ripping the DRM from tracks that have already been converted to DRM free.

Now I’m just exploring possibilities to do the same with my videos bought on iTunes. The best thing I can think of is getting Apple TV hookup to an HD TV with VCR and DVD Recorder/Player and get the purchased and copy protected iTunes video content to play on my high definition television (which I am buying later this year) and then re-record it to VHS. I could buy blank VHS tapes — I know VHS in the movie industry for buying movies on VHS is dead but in video stores blank VHS tapes are being sold.

I would record to DVR but then won’t be able to retrieve it and don’t know if the recording would stay or get erased due to DRM.

I used to use HYMN and JHYMN to bust the DRM off of iTunes tracks. But they’ve seemed to have given up on keeping up with Apple and the iTunes updates. The result: I try NOT to buy songs from iTunes anymore.

HYMN was a great idea. It removed the DRM but left the user’s fingerprints on the file so that if they tried to distribute it illegally, it would be easy to find out who did it. But Apple slit their own wrists on several occasions where HYMN is concerned. First, they started LOOKING for the non-DRM tracks that still had the fingerprints, and then refusing to play them. So HYMN changed to remove all traces of the purchaser. That probably put more music straight from iTunes onto the pirated list. Second, Apple kept updating iTunes, so HYMN seems to have given up on trying to stay ahead. The result there: I buy from Amazon (or else I buy the CDs). Apple could have beaten Wal-Mart even quicker if they’d not put so much effort into defeating HYMN.

This DRM Dumpster sounds like it uses the so-called “analog hole” (it isn’t really analog, however) to burn and re-rip tracks. This is, of course, always an option. But it should be noted that the quality of each track is reduced with this process.

-Mike

You hit the nail on the head in your post. Buy the CD and rip it to iTunes. Rip it again to MusicMatch. Rip it again when you buy a new computer. Rip it again 5 years later when technology changes. What the heck, give it to your buddy and let him rip it just to piss off Sony BMG. Problem solved.

Here’s the way I look at it. CDs are DRM-free (mostly). So the best way to make a stance against DRM is to buy only DRM-free media. So yeah, buy the CD and rip it. Copy it. Even lend it to friends.

But I always try to support the artists that I enjoy. If my friend lends me a CD that I like, I will buy the CD for myself (you never know when you’ll lose the MP3s and your friend will also lose the CD).

Of course, the idea that buying music in any form supports the artists is dubious, at best. I read all manner of articles that say that a $15 CD puts less than a dime in the artists’ pockets. A $0.99 track purchased online gives them a penny. So, go to the concerts. Support your favorite bands so that they can continue to make the music you love.

I also do this with movies. Sure, sometimes I will rip a Netflix DVD to iTunes if I don’t think I can get to it right away. But I will delete the file after I watch it. Or, on occasion, if I want to keep that movie, I will go out and buy the DVD for myself. Sure it stays in the shrinkwrap, since I already have the movie on my AppleTV and my Mac, but I feel better because I’ve purchased the DVD and am supporting the actors/authors/directors/etc.

-Mike

I’m in lockstep with your train of thought here. You know an idea is insidious when Bill Gates admits it should be trashed (which he actually did).

Other thoughts, despite my jokes I’m actually very straight-laced when it comes to purchasing and supporting artists. I own over 200 DVD Movies, probably around 400 music CDs, and at least 500 software titles. Last year my wife and I took in Billy Joel, Elton John, and Alison Krauss at the Birmingham Jefferson Civic Center. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not being defensive, just throwing out some evidence that I’m with you all the way.)

As far as systems, I’ve got several Windows boxes at home as well as a Mac Mini.

Keep your blogging going, they’re very well written and interesting.

Thanks for the kind words… will do. Got another one about to hit… very controversial

I caught Billy Joel last year too, and I get out to see Rush whenever they come within 500 miles of here. Not to mention all the other bands I frequent: 3 Doors Down, Chevelle, Breaking Benjamin, REM, NIN, Journey, Def Leppard… yeah, I like going to concerts!

Since you have a Mac Mini too, let me ask you this… see if you can help me out.

Since the Mac Mini’s internal drive is a paltry 40GB, I use an external drive to keep my iTunes content. Not a problem. But occasionally, iTunes will just reset the location of the iTunes content to my personal folder’s Music directory (~/Music). This, of course, screws everything up as all new podcasts save to that folder and it’s not easy to relocate them (plus, iTunes suddenly can’t find things). I haven’t been able to determine what makes iTunes just decide to reset that folder location, but it happens every now and then.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
-Mike

My sister saw Rush last year somewhere in Virginia. You could probably charge tickets just to view Neil Peart’s rig from what she told me.

About the external drive issue, I’m fairly sure this happens when you disconnect or power off or unmount your external hard drive while the Mac is powered up.

The solution is to delete your local default iTunes Music folder (I’m assuming it’s empty) and replace it with a symbolic link to the external music folder. That way when you re-mount your external drive, iTunes will look at your default Music directory but actually be pointed to your external directory. Clear as mud?

I haven’t played with symbolic links, but this sounds like a great idea.

Might it also help if I altered the mount point of the external drive? I’m not sure how I would do that in OSX (in Linux it’s easy) but a Google search or two should solve that. But would changing the mount point repeat the issue for when the drive isn’t mounted?

You’re right… I think the symbolic link would be better.

I’m going to try this tonight. Might also solve some other issues, like the idea that the iTunes files are still in ~/Music, but the music and videos are in /Volumes/externaldrive. Should turn 2 backups into 1.

Thanks,
-Mike

Mike,

I recently read a column on the letters and blogs section of the Guardian website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/5) about Apple and buyer’s rights. I couldn’t agree more with some of the statements:

Statement 1) As long as the purchased content is DRM-free, I couldn’t care less what other services they might offer with DRM’d content, and I would still caution anyone thinking of using them of the limitations of DRM (How Apple is changing DRM, May 15). If the price for the DRM’d service reflects its much lower value due to the DRM, then maybe it’s a nice alternative. I’ll reserve judgment until something tangible is shown. — a logical statement by username p812.com/tire

Statement 2) It’s looking more and more like analysts may be worrying too much about DRM, and not enough about whether music services were actually useful to customers. Apple’s iTunes store rose to prominence despite selling DRM’d music, and it’s grown even more dominant as competitors have started selling non-DRM’d music. If the market demonstrates that there’s an interest in subscription music services, Apple’s likely to dominate the market with its own DRM’d offering. from podcastingnews.com

Statement 3) THIS ONE I AGREE WITH WHOLEHEARTEDLY — Microsoft is one of the largest sellers of DRM technology and has screwed it up badly. Microsoft purposely killed off Windows Media Player for the Mac in an attempt to lock out Macs and iPods from Microsoft’s DRM as if they were the market leader. Making their own DRM not compatible with the iPod has proved to be a bad move. By reelsmart.com

Microsoft released a universal DRM under Plays for Sure (formerly called Janus if I’m not mistaken) they used it for both online video and music (download to own video stores using Microsoft DRM include Blockbuster’s MovieLink and the independent CinemaNow.com website. Microsoft’s own MSN Music Store that is now defunct, and all music download stores still selling Plays for Sure music are proprietors of the Microsoft Plays for Sure DRM (and have been in the past — some have stopped like Microsoft’s MSN Music Store only to be replaced by the more proprietary Zune). Microsoft restricted Plays for Sure purchases to working only on computers running their Windows operating system. Otherwise purchases could play on any mp3 player device of the consumer’s choosing other than the iPod — most mp3 players have had licensing done to support Plays for Sure.

(This post I had made to the Apple vs Microsoft piece you wrote and I am reposting it to the piece you wrote about MSN Music Store shuttering — I mention this piece in my post) I saw your recent post about Microsoft shuttering MSN Music servers this August after which point anyone wanting to reauthorize their music for playback or deauthorizing an existing computer to authorize a new one will be unable to do so.

Microsoft won’t even allow the Zune player to play Plays for Sure protected tracks. The only DRM system that works with Zune is Zune DRM. So the music from Zune store can only work with 1 device the Zune just like protected content from iTunes Store only works with iPods, iPhones and Apple TVs.

At the least Microsoft should allow anyone who bought Plays for Sure protected music from MSN Music Store re-download their music from the Zune Store completely free if they choose to get a Zune player.

Mike,

Sorry for the double post: I just wanted to say buying a music CD doesn’t really help the artists. The major record labels have been exploiting the artists and the customers they have for years. (see http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes) the site http://www.downhillbattle.org has unfortunately been having server problems lately so sometimes I find the entire site offline other times they fix it for a little while and it comes back online only to go offline again. Their trying to fix the server problem so it stays online.

If your able to access their site they say music download stores like iTunes don’t help the artists they perpetuate the existing exploitation. The reason artists get such a raw deal is because they have always had that deal. Downhill Battle states buying independent label music is okay because they pay their artists better and don’t do unscrupulous things like suing innocent people for file sharing even when their not file sharing.

They support a Voluntary Collective Licensing program (VCL) they discuss it on their iTunes is bogus page (www.downhillbattle.org/itunes) and say it is also discussed more in depth at one of the pages of http://www.eff.org

They say the RIAA would never support VCL which is unfortunate. THe RIAA pays radio stations to only play RIAA music on the radio so consumers don’t get a chance to hear independent music.

The RIAA do a lot of dirty underhanded things and Downhill Battle is about music activism that is good for consumers and artists. They want to empower others to reform the music industry. They don’t have a problem with Apple — they state they own Macs and iPods but that iTunes success translates into success for RIAA which is bad. Downloading music for free on peer to peer networks and then sending the artist money directly and cutting the RIAA out of the sale is the best thing to do.

I’m considering quitting buying music online as downloads and start downloading for free again (even if RIAA thinks that is piracy so what) I’ll find a P.O. Box for the artist or the artist’s fan club’s mailing address etc and send the check with a letter asking them if they know how to get in touch with the artist to send the check to the artist.

Well, hopefully there aren’t any issues in this. The RIAA and the labels serve a purpose for the bands, which is to get the bands’ music out into the poublic eye. Bribing radio stations is part of this. They provide a service to the band, and as such they get compensation.

Unfortunately, however, they cut draconian deals with the artists, which sucks. But if you hear a band on the radio and decide to pirate their music and pay the artists directly, then the artist is in violation of their contract with their label and can be sued.

In the end, I think the best thing to do is to try to shy away from such artists. Show the industry that they can get their music to the people without the need for an RIAA-type overlord organization.

I think traditional radio stations are about to go the way of the dinosaur anyway. Satellite radio and internet radio are becoming more prevalent and there’s less and less reason to listen to scratchy analog AM or FM.

So, then what are the ways to hear about new music? Personally, I have picked up on some new music in some odd places, such as theme songs for TV shows and appearances in movies.

I understand that the young peoples today get a lot of their music information from The MySpace and The Facebook. Word-of-mouth is always a great way to hear about stuff. What are some others?

-Mike

Mike,

I’ll think of some other great sites from getting music information out to the public (as you mentioned MySpace and Facebook as two of them) I’m not sure if http://www.nutsie.com would count it is a music streaming service — its like Internet radio — consumers with iTunes upload their iTunes playlists to the site and then listen to music.

In the meantime what your thoughts to my preceding post on the Apple and buyer’s rights piece?

Do you think Microsoft killed Windows Media Player for Mac future development to keep Macs, and iPods out of Microsoft’s DRM? As one of the comments of that piece suggests.

Pandora is also another great internet radio destination.

As for the comments on DRM, I think they’re all the samme stuff we’ve discussed. DRM is divisive and only serves to keep consumers mired in pools of incompatibility.

And it’s really sad. There are better audio formats than MP3 that give the same quality at half the bitrate (read: half the file size, which equals twice as much music in your pocket). But MP3 is now the bastion of no DRM.

It certainly would be nice if we had more information on how non-DRM music can still make money.

I saw on Diggnation a few weeks ago where Alex and Kevin asked their live audience about where they get their content. They asked how many people use BitTorrent/Pirate Bay. Then they asked how many people use P2P for music downloads. And then they asked how many people buy MP3s from Amazon. Finally they asked how many people buy DRM’ed tracks.

Realize that the Diggnation audience is very tech-savvy. Almost all of them cheered in response to all of the questions except for the DRM purchases. So yes, they pirate, but they also purchase non-DRM tracks from Amazon. But they don’t buy from iTunes and the Zune Marketplace as much.

I believe there was also a question about availability. The crowd seemed to agree that if media were available online, DRM-free, for purchase, that they would gladly pay. They only pirate to get media that they can consume the way they wish to consume it (iPods, iPhones, Zunes, other media players, on computers, on AppleTVs, on other media extenders).

-Mike

What do you think about the DRM in Windows Vista Media Center? I know you’ve said there is no apparent DRM in Vista and Microsoft is just providing compatibility in Vista to work with protected Blu Ray Discs and during the format war HD DVD discs (they were supporting AACS) that all the stories of Vista DRM were FUD. However, I have heard that Windows Vista’s Media Center is now adhering to a broadcast flag.

Microsoft says they are following FCC regulations — but the FCC broadcast flag regulation they speak of is not required for them to follow according to the courts and the U.S. Congress. Even if the regulation had to be followed the FCC said with its broadcast flag policy that users can still record but the content that gets recorded will have a layer of copy protection added to it to prevent the content from being played on unauthorized devices. (see Microsoft’s Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center Play By? written May 19th 2008) This article was posted on the Electronic Frontier Foundation website by a user named Danny O’Brien. Here’s a direct link: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/microsofts-masters-whose-rules-does-your-media-cen

What has happened is Microsoft won’t even allow Vista Media Center users to record over the air NBC digital TV programs.

Even if the FCC broadcast flag regulations had to be followed Microsoft has gone a step further than the FCC mandated. They never said recording should not be allowed. Microsoft on its own is disallowing recording of said content — perhaps at NBC’s request.

I will check out Pandora by the way when I get some time.

I think by not buying RIAA music that will help end their strangehold of the music industry and then independent music labels and artists can have their music play on the radio. It would be great if RIAA and indy music could play on the radio — I don’t have a problem with RIAA music being on the radio but RIAA bribing radio stations to keep off independent label music.

That is very interesting. Microsoft is adhering to the broadcast flag when the FCC says they don’t have to.

First let me say that saying “DRM is in” something is a tricky situation, full of semantics. Let me reiterate, my way of thinking is that the DRM resides on a work of media. A piece of software that can unlock that DRM doesn’t itself have DRM.

DRM attempts to prevent copying of some media. So if you say “Windows Media Center has DRM in it,” then the connotation is that Windows Media Center is attempting to prevent copying of Windows Media Center.

But if an audio or video file has DRM and Windows Media Center can unlock that DRM and play the file, then it’s still the file that has the DRM.

In essence, DRM is bad. Anything that has DRM is bad. But things that can unlock DRM (hopefully legally) are good. The more things that can unlock a DRM scheme, the less invasive and restrictive that DRM becomes. In essence, if WMP could play FairPlay tracks from iTunes, then FairPlay becomes a little less restrictive, and thus a little less evil.

In any case, moving on, I do find it interesting that Microsoft is playing nice with the broadcasters. I can only surmise that they are trying to grab market share from Apple by being the favored vendor. In essence, they’re saying, “see? We are going farther than anyone else in helping you to protect your content… so why not allow US to have exclusive rights to distribute your content online?”

In essence, I see nothing wrong. But I do see what appears to be some back-office appeasement. Micsrosoft has no obligation to ONLY adhere to FCC regulations. They can go beyond if they so wish. That’s not illegal. It’s not ideal for consumers, of course, but it’s not illegal.

The EFF is basically saying, “if you want your content to be as free as is legal, then don’t use Windows Media Center.”

-Mike

Mike,

That was a good post and perfectly reasonable explanation of the situation. The Free Software Foundations Defective By Design.org website has also added a post suggesting a boycott of Windows Media Center for the same reason.

Your right about the lack of DRM in Windows Vista Media Center on the grounds of it preventing copying of Windows Media Center. However. the point was it employs a DRM scheme that prevents users from recording video to their Media Center enabled PCs. One of Windows Media Center’s best features in the past has supposedly been the ability to record video. My sister actually has a Windows Media Center PC with XP Media Center Edition 2005. It is a laptop manufactured by HP with Media Center on it and she uses the built-in TV Tuner to record her favorite programs to her laptop. Imagine tomorrow if she was told she can no longer record using Windows Media Center. That is the reality for anyone who upgrades from XP Media Center to Vista Media Center or who buys a new PC with Vista Media Center.

I never got XP Media Center for 2 reasons (and WILL NEVER GET Vista Media Center for a few reasons as well also listed below)

1) I already have a perfectly fine PC and with XP Media Center it was a shame that consumers were required to buy a whole new computer from a PC vendor other than Apple which manufactures and sells personal computers bundled with Windows that includes the Media Center software preinstalled.

I somehow don’t mind buying a new Mac every few years with the latest media capabilities (my first Mac the PowerBook G4 still has OS X Panther on it and of course no Front Row; my Apple Mac Mini came with OS X Tiger and Front Row included) whereas buying a whole new PC irritates me to just get some new features. I can constantly upgrade the hardware on my existing PC and install software updates to it as I like but on the Mac I don’t mind buying newer ones. Apple delivers great innovations and better security than PCs running Windows and I like getting the latest from Apple (if this seems hypocritical perhaps it is but I don’t mind getting the latest Apple Macs) my next Mac will be an iMac.

I actually plan to move from my current home later this year into a bigger house and will have my Mac Mini, existing desktop PC that I can customize with Windows XP Professional pre-installed, a High Definition Television with Apple TV, my Nintendo Wii and an Apple iMac. I do not yet own an iMac, an Apple TV or a HD TV. I will also be looking to buy a VCR DVD recorder and a good DVD player that can output my DVDs to HD without having to buy a Blu Ray player.

I am enjoying Front Row in Mac OS X and am thinking of either having a double boot or triple boot system on the new iMac I get perhaps by next fall with Mac OS X Leopard, KBuntu Linux with Linux MCE, and Windows XP Professional. I have started buying more games lately for Mac than Windows and am buying whatever games I can for Linux through http://www.tuxgames.com

I don’t want to support the Microsoft Windows OS monopoly anymore in gaming whatever games I already have for Windows I’ll play in Windows but am gradually going to stop Windows game purchases — I don’t want Apple to have an exclusive lock-in on games either but have a chance to get some gaming market share for Mac OS X by taking some share from the Windows base — maybe not a lot of share but little by little as much as possible and at the same time have Linux get more share.

For the same reason I don’t want to continue to prop up Windows for games I don’t want to prop up Microsoft’s XBox game console business either. So I use non Microsoft consoles, and non Microsoft products as much as possible. Sometimes I still need Windows and my PC, I know Macs can run Windows but not all Macs let you customize the hardware — also sometimes I need Microsoft Office — I use it most of the time in Windows — sometimes even on the Mac I need Office but try and use other products like Open Office in Windows and Apple iWork 08 on the Mac.

While I have supported some proprietary technologies and continue to do so gradually I hope to support more open source options than proprietary technologies.

I understand that line of reasoning by the way that Microsoft is going further than anyone else to protect the content of the companies that make content so they should get the best deal for digital distribution and delivery of such content through their own online stores than anyone else.

From the consumer perspective — you say you saw nothing wrong but what appears to be back office appeasement and you acknowledge this is bad for consumers — well from the consumer perspective entirely this is wrong.

I won’t buy Vista Media Center because of the broadcast flag it is using. I refuse to buy Microsoft products like XBox 360 I prefer my Nintendo Wii and an Apple TV.

Instead of MS Zune I prefer Apple iPod. I prefer either Linux or Mac OS to Windows as often as possible.

If I am not mistaken, every version of Vista has Media Center. I may be mistaken, but it is true that MCE is no longer like it is in XP where you have to get a special version of the OS on a special piece of hardware. MC comes with Vista.

So, the point is that boycotting Vista’s Media Center is a moot point at best. You’re buying it with Vista whether you use it or not.

Furthermore, if the content you seek is only available on Media Center (which I think Microsoft is aiming for), then you have 2 choices: use Vista MC, or else don’t watch the content you want.

I find Vista’s MC better than XP’s, but that’s just personal opinion. And MC will record, so it’s still better than Front Row, out of the box.

Only recently did Apple fix Front Row to make it worth using, IMO. Before, if you watched, say, a podcast in Front Row, it wouldn’t update the “watched” flag and the play count in iTunes. Same for songs and such. But it seems to update now, so it’s a lot better.

But I still don’t use it very often simply because I have the AppleTV, which is like a Mac that ONLY runs Front Row. Unfortunately, there are some things about Front Row and AppleTV which are sadly lacking, IMO. Like the ability to delete content, or rate songs, or create play lists.

Frankly, I don’t understand Apple’s schizophrenia in this department at all. Front Row, AppleTV, iPhone, and iPods should all be treated as extensions of iTunes. As such, they should all have a 2-way communication with iTunes, and they should all have the same basic subset of iTunes functions.

For instance, iPods can create playlists; iPhones, AppleTVs, and Front Row cannot. iPhones can delete videos; but the others can’t. AppleTVs can download podcasts (even though they don’t then sync to iTunes, nor do they auto-update), but the others cannot.

In the end, for Apple to really have a complete solution, they need to make sure all of their media products have similar functionality subsets.

As for games, well, I really don’t have a comment there. I play what I like to play, and if that means playing on Windows, so be it. I already have Windows gaming machines, so I’m not hurting anyone by refusing to buy a game. I hate Sony a lot and think that the PS3 is overpriced crap, so I won’t own one of those. Wiis are more social game consoles, and it seems to me that people love the base Wii games, but no one seems to be jumping on the 3rd-party Wii stuff. We may see development for the Wii taper off.

The Xbox360 is an awesome gaming platform, and it also functions as a pretty good media platform as well. Although, I only like certain games on consoles. I really hate games like Halo and other FPSes on consoles because I think the keyboard and mouse are far superior control structures for such games. Some disagree with me, I am sure, but this is my opinion. Truth to tell, I haven’t turned my 360 on in some time. Although, GTA IV is supposed to be really good and my friends are telling me to get it. And I don’t think there is a PC version of it.

Honestly, though, I think that Apple should “bribe” some game maker that’s working on a must-have title to make it Mac only. Savvy gamers these days are more-than-willing to spend lots of money upgrading their hardware for a game title they really want. If they could have kept, say, Halo as a Mac-only title, I think that would have opened up the Mac platform as a viable place to develop for. But right now, no one has a Mac for gaming because there aren’t any great games that require a Mac. And the reverse is true: no one creates premiere titles for Mac because few people have them. It’s tautological.

Looking back, I have purchased all new gaming rigs for several games that I knew I wanted: Falcon 3.0, Falcon 4.0, Quake, Doom 3, Crysis… that’s 5 computers right there that I’ve purchased simply to play a game I really wanted. And I don’t think I am that rare in that respect.

So, if Apple could get a premier title to be Mac-only, I think we would see a lot of gamers buying Macs to play it, and then developers could see that they can create Mac titles and still make a good profit.

Open Source seems to be a great way to go for most things. But I don’t perceive that any Open Source project has really driven the industry in any great fashion. Open Source is usually more reactive. By that I mean, for instance, OpenOffice.org is a great office suite… but it was created to COMPETE with Microsoft Office. OO.org didn’t come about as the first kid on the block.

Apple and Microsoft, however, make huge strides toward driving various sectors of the internet forward. Products such as DirectX, iTunes, and Office, drive those portions of the industry and dare everyone else to try to keep up. In the Open Source arena, there are some things that have become industry standards, such as Apache; but these success stories are too few and far between to matter yet.

Open Source also still has a long way to go to be standardized enough to appeal to n00bs. There are still too many choices, and there are still far too many gaps in driver software. It still takes a true geek to configure some things such as laptop wi-fi cards. And when 99% of them work with Windows out-of-the-box, well that’s a big selling point for Windows.

-Mike

Yes in a way Vista Media Center is better than XP Media Center because you don’t have to buy a whole new computer anymore for Media Center — in Vista Media Center comes with every edition of Vista. However, there are still some issues with Vista in general becoming compatible with XP applications (including games I have SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition for Windows as I do the Mac version and if I had Vista I would want the Windows version of SimCity 4 that runs in XP to work with Vista) and the broadcast flag issue now being raised. I agree though with the majority of what you said in your last post. I’ve been buying click wheel based iPod Games for my 5th generation video iPod most of which can also be played on the newer click wheel based iPod Classic with video and iPod Nano with video. However, I am also intrigued in the new App Store coming out late June (next month) that will include games for the iPod Touch and iPhone like Apple’s Touch Fighter.

Assuming you don’t buy a new PC, you can always dual-boot to have both XP and Vista. Have you tried running SimCity 4 in Vista?

All in all, I still don’t see what all the fuss is about. Vista has been rock solid for me. I confess I don’t do much in Vista outside of games, but games are usually what pushes a system to its limits anyway.

It hasn’t been all perfect, of course. Hellgate: London suddenly stopped working for me, and I haven’t updated or anything. So I am at a loss to explain that one. But every other game, old and new, has run quite well under Vista. Even as far back a game as Rainbow Six: Raven Shield.

-Mike

I’ve not upgraded to Vista because that would require massive hardware upgrades for me (would prefer to keep my existing PC rather than buying a new one with Vista), I have an already decent TV Tuner that works with XP unless I feel a compelling need or desire to upgrade hardware components — I may upgrade my hardware anyways but want to keep XP I hear XP loads faster on a Vista compatible machine than even Vista. The fact Vista has issues running XP software has led me to withhold upgrading to Vista not counting the fact it is an expensive upgrade even if buying the retail version to update the software on my existing PC. Some posts about Vista disadvantages are FUD and some are real until I feel Vista is a worthy upgrade for me I’ll hold off on it. I hear in the business market some businesses are considering holding off on Vista entirely and will wait till the next major version of Windows after Vista ships. Till then they’ll continue running good old XP which is surprisingly stable. I remember when XP first came out like most people concerned with privacy and Microsoft antitrust issues I thought XP was bad for consumers and Microsoft competitors. Microsoft’s so called Windows services initiative and bundling of .Net Passport with Windows XP amounted to integrating MSN.COM services with Windows and they provided incentives to use MSN only while luring potential AOL users to switch to MSN.

XP had privacy issues because of .Net Passport — trusting Microsoft with ones personal information didn’t go too well with me but it is a stable operating system and might not be as secure as Mac OS X or Linux but is somewhat secure.

Well, I would hate to see you formulate all of your opinions about Vista without actually having used it. I am loathe to believe anything I read, particularly on the internet where being a nay-sayer seems to be the norm, until I see for myself.

Loading times are more a function of how much startup crap you have installed. You can easily make an XP machine boot slower than a Vista machine and vice-versa. With a truly clean install, and all the unnecessary stuff turned off, both Vista and XP can boot in less than a minute.

As for hardware, don’t believe the hype on that either. If your system runs XP well, it should run Vista fine. Most of the complaining I see about Vista’s hardware needs are in memory and video. If you have 1GB of RAM, then Vista will run fine. You might even get away with 500MB. And if you don’t have a decent 3D video card in your system, simply turn off Aero Glass. In fact, if you don’t have a decent video card, Vista will have Glass off by default.

I’m not trying to persuade you to run out and drop several hundred dollars on Vista, just to see what it’s like. But as someone who’s obviously interested in tech stuff, you may wish to consider getting a first-hand look at it.

All in all, and I’ve said this before, the higher Vista configurations (Pro, Premium, Ultimate, whatever) actually have some features that are improvements over what comes with XP in the box. But the basic versions of Vista, such as Home Basic, don’t really give much over XP, except some more security. In the end, the only real compelling reason to get Vista is that XP will be unsupported before long.

But then, I feel the same way about Leopard.

I still think Microsoft should start a whole new line of operating systems… and get away from Windows eventually. Imagine if they could, like OSX, build on a Unix or Linux kernel and make an OS for all of us. If MS simply took a flavor of Linux and devoted themselves to writing standardized drivers for all of the hardware out there, they could have an awesome OS that would be easy to use and also extremely powerful. And secure. They could also work on true Windows compatibility, like WINE, except straight from Microsoft themselves. Then a lot of old software would work with the new OS. And power users could easily choose from existing open source solutions.

Just my $0.02. Redmond has a lot of very smart people… they just need to get focused in a really good direction.

-Mike

An uncle of mine has a new PC running Vista and I have tried it somewhat — since its not my computer I haven’t tried installing any of my games on it — the only thing I ever used it for actually was to access the Internet and regrettably for me that meant using Internet Explorer because it neither had Mozilla Firefox or Apple Safari or any other non IE browser installed. Personally I think the interface in Windows XP is a lot better. The dark gray Start bar is fugly — freaking ugly in my opinion. I don’t want to risk getting Vista if all the things I’ve read are true. Besides even if they are not I don’t want to continue to fund their Windows OS monopoly.

In any case you have made some good points. I just don’t want to pay Microsoft for another Windows license. The only reason I would ever buy Vista is for Media Center but as EFF pointed out Vista Media Center prevents the user from recording some television programming thus I will never support Media Center with such restrictions.

Apple itself could make a new operating system business separate from Mac OS X if they wanted to. They could in fact make their own distribution of Linux. Mac OS X is already a UNIX based operating system so for them to make a new UNIX operating system unless its Linux based wouldn’t make much sense. They could make their own distribution of Linux and/or port their applications that work with Mac and Windows to work with existing distributions of Linux — whether or not they make their own distribution.

Microsoft could make its own Linux distribution even but in the case of Microsoft I don’t ever see that happening because they see free software as a threat to their business. You can buy commercial software for Linux like games (see http://www.tuxgames.com) but in the case of the operating system competing with a free operating system is tough. Microsoft tries to discredit Linux.

Apple making its own Linux distribution or porting apps to Linux are somewhat more likely but even then not likely in the next few years at least. I doubt Apple would make its own distribution of Linux but if they did decide to support Linux they’ll just port their stuff to existing Linux distributions.

However, none of those other options seem likely anytime soon.
You never know though maybe someday it could happen.

I think Microsoft has a lot better shot at making a full-on OS for the masses out of a *nix kernel. Apple works on limited hardware platforms, whereas Windows works on virtually infinite hardware configurations. I think this makes a huge difference in who can create a good OS for the multitude of PCs out there.

-Mike

An Apple Linux distribution and/or a Microsoft Linux distribution in either case would have to be an open operating system that works with all hardware sets. Apple could continue to make their Mac OS X tied to Apple hardware and offer their own desktop version of Linux for both Mac and PC. A Microsoft Linux distribution similarly would work on all kinds of x86 supported hardware.

I’m just saying its technically possible even for a company like Apple to make and distribute its own version of Linux they wouldn’t do so though because that would not fit with their business model. Linux does not fit Microsoft’s business model either. Both companies if they wanted to well I don’t know about Microsoft — they perceive Linux as a threat to their business and see Linux distributors for the most part that don’t sign agreements with Microsoft to pay Microsoft for alleged patent violations (Microsoft claiming Linux infringes its copyrighted and/or patented technology — ridiculous! even still some companies have settled with Microsoft on this dunno if they are still pursuing this case against others who haven’t settled) Apple does not see Linux as a giant threat to its entire business.

They don’t mind people using Linux. Apple mainly sells computers bundled with its Mac OS X operating system. If a customer buys an Apple computer and chooses to install Linux Apple is happy to have just gotten the sale of the computer. Hardware is more important to Apple than software. That’s not to say they aren’t a software company but most of the money they make from their Mac business comes from sales of new Mac computers.

If a Mac user runs Linux Apple doesn’t mind. They have never said anything bad about Linux. They just don’t cater to Linux users. They don’t make their programs that are compatible with Windows also for Linux. Nor do they make their own Linux distribution. Linux just doesn’t fit their business model. Apple has said they support open source. Mac OS X is part open source part proprietary.

Apple’s Linux policy has been one of asking Linux developers to port their stuff to Mac OS X. Deliver Linux programs to Macintosh users via the Mac OS.

The point to note here is that Apple is NOT a software company… it’s a hardware company.

What you’re missing is the idea that all companies have an innate sense of expertise. It’s called “core competency.”

Microsoft has tons of experience and expertise in creating software that runs a wide variety of hardware… after all, they ARE a software company. They even create loads of generic hardware drivers. Ever wonder why so many pieces of hardware can work in Windows without having to install the manufacturer’s drivers?

So my point is that Apple is not well-suited to creating another OS that’s usable on nearly all hardware sets. Well, they aren’t as well-suited as Microsoft is.

And my point is also that Apple doesn’t need a new line of business right now… they’re doing fine.

But Microsoft is losing stature and position in the industry because there is so much nay-saying about Vista. Truly, I don’t believe Vista is as bad as everyone says, but that doesn’t matter. People seem to believe the hype and the FUD and are full-on believing that Vista is horrible. As such, Vista may well be the death of Microsoft.

My point was that I think Microsoft should begin a new line of OSes, apart from Windows, that they can then rely on as Windows fades away. “Windows” is rapidly becoming a naughty word, so they need to innovate and distance themselves from that product line as soon as it becomes an anchor around their neck.

But they can’t wait and do that then. They should start a whole new line of next generation OSes, which I believe they should base on the Linux or Unix kernel, which would make nearly everyone happy. Imagine, an OS that works, is secure, can be used by neophytes, and can be fully utilized by true power users. And it could easily become as ubiquitous as Windows in the future.

BTW, not all Linux and Unix is open source. BSD isn’t free, although there is a version of it that is, called FreeBSD. Same goes for RedHat, although there is a free version called Fedora.

To the best of my knowledge, OSX is NOT open source in the least.

-Mike

Interesting post. I’d just like to focus on that last part about OS X not being open source in the least. Mac OS X runs open source software and is based on BSD UNIX — a lot of the operating system is indeed proprietary I said that myself in my last post — although I did say some of it is open source only as much as Apple will allow.

If you Google Apple Darwin you see some results regarding open source technologies mentioned on Apple.com

Apple’s Darwin Streaming Server for Windows is according to Apple an open source version of Apple’s own QuickTime Streaming Server for Mac. They have 2 products Darwin and Darwin Streaming Server both are open source. The Darwin code

If you go to http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html you’ll see the following passages: “If you like open source development, you’ll love Mac OS X. This fully-conformant UNIX operating system—built on Mach 3.0 and FreeBSD 5—bundles over a hundred of the most popular Open Source products. You can shell out with bash, tcsh, ksh, and zsh; edit your code with emacs, vim, and nano; and build your projects using gcc, make, and autoconf.

Need something a little higher-level? Run your X11 apps side-by-side with native apps using X11R7 from X.org. Serve your web site with Apache 2.0 and PHP 5. Start scripting with Ruby and Python, and build web applications with the Ruby on Rails framework. You can even measure your application’s performance using DTrace from OpenSolaris.

All these Open Source products are integrated into every Mac, ready to use.”

Apple’s Darwin source code is publicly available you can find the link to access this information on the bottom of the same page I mentioned the link for above.

On Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X) on the top right hand side of the page it says the source model of the operating system is closed source with open source components and yes it has a proprietary end user license agreement.

I know not all distributions of UNIX are free although there are 2 free distributions called Free BSD and I think the other is NetBSD if I’m not mistaken about the name of the second Free BSD distribution. I know there are 2 free BSD distributions.

I’m aware Red Hat Linux is not free although when people think of Linux in general regardless of distribution they usually think its free. Some distributions are free but not all.

When I say Mac OS X is open source and proprietary I mean there are some parts of the Mac OS that are based on open source code but then there is a lot more proprietary coding in the operating system.

As I recall Darwin plays a major part in Mac OS X. There is a link I found that talks about “What is Darwin And How It Powers Mac OS X” http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2005/09/27/what-is-darwin.html

So no Mac OS X is not completely proprietary it is for the most part but some small portions are open source like Darwin.