Commodore Rides Again??

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 22, 2010.

  1. I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.

    Still, they’re going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is listed
    first <http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the graphics, though. :)
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    In article <>, "geoff"
    <> wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    > >
    > > Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is
    > > listed first <http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the
    > > graphics, though. :)

    >
    > Laptop without a screen ?


    Thanks to the useles morons at Vodafone / ihug I can't actually see either
    of those links, but Commodore and Amiga got flushed down the toilet by
    hopelessly incompetent management years ago, and it aint coming back in
    any sensible form.
    There were some fools a while back that bought the Amiga brand and were
    planning on making silly TV set-top boxes. :-\

    Then there was the companies selling C64 and Amiga emulators for Windows PCs.
     
    Your Name, Mar 23, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Adam Guest

    Your Name wrote:

    > In article <>, "geoff"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> > I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    >> > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    >> >
    >> > Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is
    >> > listed first <http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the
    >> > graphics, though. :)

    >>
    >> Laptop without a screen ?

    >
    > Thanks to the useles morons at Vodafone / ihug I can't actually see either
    > of those links, but Commodore and Amiga got flushed down the toilet by
    > hopelessly incompetent management years ago, and it aint coming back in
    > any sensible form.
    > There were some fools a while back that bought the Amiga brand and were
    > planning on making silly TV set-top boxes. :-\
    >
    > Then there was the companies selling C64 and Amiga emulators for Windows
    > PCs.


    Vic 20. I never really understood why the Atari Falcon never took off,
    but only made for a year or so.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon

    For its time, only it and the Next Computer had an onboard DSP, and unlike
    the Next was priced for household use, 1200 as opposed to 6 grand or so.
    The Next Computer had the Unix based development software, so kicked on for
    years and years - indeed it and its Next brothers saw in the internet and
    new Macs. One of the most successful machines of all time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_Computer
     
    Adam, Mar 23, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    In article <ho95sn$1d8$>, Adam <> wrote:

    > Your Name wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, "geoff"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > >> > I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > >> > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    > >> >
    > >> > Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is
    > >> > listed first <http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the
    > >> > graphics, though. :)
    > >>
    > >> Laptop without a screen ?

    > >
    > > Thanks to the useles morons at Vodafone / ihug I can't actually see either
    > > of those links, but Commodore and Amiga got flushed down the toilet by
    > > hopelessly incompetent management years ago, and it aint coming back in
    > > any sensible form.
    > >
    > > There were some fools a while back that bought the Amiga brand and were
    > > planning on making silly TV set-top boxes. :-\
    > >
    > > Then there was the companies selling C64 and Amiga emulators for Windows
    > > PCs.

    >
    > Vic 20. I never really understood why the Atari Falcon never took off,
    > but only made for a year or so.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon
    >
    > For its time, only it and the Next Computer had an onboard DSP, and unlike
    > the Next was priced for household use, 1200 as opposed to 6 grand or so.
    > The Next Computer had the Unix based development software, so kicked on for
    > years and years - indeed it and its Next brothers saw in the internet and
    > new Macs. One of the most successful machines of all time.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_Computer


    Yep. Steve Jobs founded Apple Computers (with Steve Wozniak), then got
    pushed out and started NeXT and Pixar. When he re-joined Apple again he
    brought with him the NeXT OS which forms the basis for Mac OS X.


    The first computers I use were the Apple II machines at school, then we
    got a VIC 20 at home. This was replaced a bit later by a C64. The we had
    an Amiga 500. Later I bought a Mac, which I'm still using now despite
    being 11 years old! I only use the evil Empire's Windoze when I have no
    other choice.
     
    Your Name, Mar 23, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    Your Name wrote:
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    >> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    >> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    >>
    >> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is listed
    >> first <http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the graphics, though. :)

    >
    > Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers so I could
    > visit the links.
    >
    > That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only" barely
    > recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's just another
    > silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    >
    > Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
    >
    >

    What law does it break ?
     
    victor, Mar 23, 2010
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    > I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    >
    > Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is listed
    > first <http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the graphics, though. :)


    Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers so I could
    visit the links.

    That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only" barely
    recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's just another
    silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(

    Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
     
    Your Name, Mar 23, 2010
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 24/03/10 10:16, Your Name wrote:
    > "victor"<> wrote in message
    > news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    >> Your Name wrote:
    >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<_zealand> wrote in

    > message
    >>> news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    >>>> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    >>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    >>>>
    >>>> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is

    > listed
    >>>> first<http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the graphics, though.

    > :)
    >>>
    >>> Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers so I could
    >>> visit the links.
    >>>
    >>> That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only" barely
    >>> recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's just another
    >>> silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    >>>
    >>> Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.

    >>
    >> What law does it break ?

    >
    > Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    > The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything other than an
    > Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons don't take any
    > notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Assuming you have a legitimately obtained version of the software you do
    have the legal right to install software that you purchased.

    Specifically what crime has been committed ?

    Copyright law understands that for software to work, a copy has to be
    installed on a computer. It specifically allows for you to install a
    copy. There is even language in the law that allows for adaptation to
    get the software to work. Installing a copy on the computer of your
    choice probably does not break copyright law.

    Licensing means they have you agree to a contract before running the
    software for the first time. That contact states that it can only be
    installed on Macintosh computers. To do anything else is a breach of
    contract. The only thing I see here is that breaking a contract is not
    the same as breaking a criminal law.

    People break contracts all the time. It is neither a crime nor a sin.
    Sure, there can be penalties, but people don't generally end up in jail
    over breaking a contract. Penalties would generally include things like
    compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney fees, etc. So by
    no means is breaking a contract a trivial thing, but it's not a crime.
    Just an everyday contract dispute. And if you bought the software its
    difficult for Apple to claim they have a right to damages or compensation.

    The actions taken against Psystar etc have been under the DMCA in the US
    for circumvention of the TPMs
     
    victor, Mar 23, 2010
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    "victor" <> wrote in message
    news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    > Your Name wrote:
    > > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in

    message
    > > news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    > >> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > >> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    > >>
    > >> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is

    listed
    > >> first <http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the graphics, though.

    :)
    > >
    > > Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers so I could
    > > visit the links.
    > >
    > > That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only" barely
    > > recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's just another
    > > silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    > >
    > > Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.

    >
    > What law does it break ?


    Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything other than an
    Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons don't take any
    notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
     
    Your Name, Mar 23, 2010
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 23/03/10 17:28, Your Name wrote:

    >
    > Yep. Steve Jobs founded Apple Computers (with Steve Wozniak), then got
    > pushed out and started NeXT and Pixar. When he re-joined Apple again he
    > brought with him the NeXT OS which forms the basis for Mac OS X.
    >
    >
    > The first computers I use were the Apple II machines at school, then we
    > got a VIC 20 at home. This was replaced a bit later by a C64. The we had
    > an Amiga 500. Later I bought a Mac, which I'm still using now despite
    > being 11 years old! I only use the evil Empire's Windoze when I have no
    > other choice.


    Congratulations, you write well for an 11 year old !
     
    victor, Mar 23, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Adam Guest

    victor wrote:

    > On 23/03/10 17:28, Your Name wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >> The first computers I use were the Apple II machines at school, then we
    >> got a VIC 20 at home. This was replaced a bit later by a C64. The we had
    >> an Amiga 500. Later I bought a Mac, which I'm still using now despite
    >> being 11 years old! I only use the evil Empire's Windoze when I have no
    >> other choice.

    >
    > Congratulations, you write well for an 11 year old !


    <chuckle> Er, I think he meant ... never mind.

    But its great, old computers still in use today.

    The C64 still plays games well. Some Lo-Fi people like
    its sound capabilities, such as they are.

    The NeXT Computer and Next Cube are still in use by
    quite a few, by virtue of their Unix-like OS.

    Trashing newish machines seems terrible given their
    problematic short-lived OS problems.
     
    Adam, Mar 24, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    "victor" <> wrote in message
    news:hobb0c$feq$-september.org...
    > On 24/03/10 10:16, Your Name wrote:
    > > "victor"<> wrote in message
    > > news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    > >> Your Name wrote:
    > >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<_zealand> wrote in

    > > message
    > >>> news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    > >>>> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > >>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is

    > > listed
    > >>>> first<http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the graphics,

    though.
    > > :)
    > >>>
    > >>> Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers so I

    could
    > >>> visit the links.
    > >>>
    > >>> That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only" barely
    > >>> recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's just

    another
    > >>> silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    > >>>
    > >>> Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
    > >>
    > >> What law does it break ?

    > >
    > > Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    > > The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything other than

    an
    > > Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons don't take

    any
    > > notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > Assuming you have a legitimately obtained version of the software you do
    > have the legal right to install software that you purchased.
    >
    > Specifically what crime has been committed ?
    >
    > Copyright law understands that for software to work, a copy has to be
    > installed on a computer. It specifically allows for you to install a
    > copy. There is even language in the law that allows for adaptation to
    > get the software to work. Installing a copy on the computer of your
    > choice probably does not break copyright law.
    >
    > Licensing means they have you agree to a contract before running the
    > software for the first time. That contact states that it can only be
    > installed on Macintosh computers. To do anything else is a breach of
    > contract. The only thing I see here is that breaking a contract is not
    > the same as breaking a criminal law.
    >
    > People break contracts all the time. It is neither a crime nor a sin.
    > Sure, there can be penalties, but people don't generally end up in jail
    > over breaking a contract. Penalties would generally include things like
    > compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney fees, etc. So by
    > no means is breaking a contract a trivial thing, but it's not a crime.
    > Just an everyday contract dispute. And if you bought the software its
    > difficult for Apple to claim they have a right to damages or compensation.
    >
    > The actions taken against Psystar etc have been under the DMCA in the US
    > for circumvention of the TPMs


    Good grief!! I'm beginnning to remember why I unsubscribed from this
    newsgroup. :-\

    Call it whatever idiotic, pendatic nonsense you like ... the point is you
    are ONLY allowed to install Mac OS X on an Apple Macintosh computer.
     
    Your Name, Mar 24, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    "victor" <> wrote in message
    news:hobbtq$34h$-september.org...
    > On 23/03/10 17:28, Your Name wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Yep. Steve Jobs founded Apple Computers (with Steve Wozniak), then got
    > > pushed out and started NeXT and Pixar. When he re-joined Apple again he
    > > brought with him the NeXT OS which forms the basis for Mac OS X.
    > >
    > >
    > > The first computers I use were the Apple II machines at school, then we
    > > got a VIC 20 at home. This was replaced a bit later by a C64. The we had
    > > an Amiga 500. Later I bought a Mac, which I'm still using now despite
    > > being 11 years old! I only use the evil Empire's Windoze when I have no
    > > other choice.

    >
    > Congratulations, you write well for an 11 year old !


    Yes, there's an "it" missing from the sentence.
     
    Your Name, Mar 24, 2010
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    Your Name wrote:
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hobb0c$feq$-september.org...
    >> On 24/03/10 10:16, Your Name wrote:
    >>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    >>>> Your Name wrote:
    >>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<_zealand> wrote in
    >>> message
    >>>>> news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    >>>>>> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    >>>>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is
    >>> listed
    >>>>>> first<http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the graphics,

    > though.
    >>> :)
    >>>>> Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers so I

    > could
    >>>>> visit the links.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only" barely
    >>>>> recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's just

    > another
    >>>>> silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
    >>>> What law does it break ?
    >>> Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    >>> The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything other than

    > an
    >>> Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons don't take

    > any
    >>> notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Assuming you have a legitimately obtained version of the software you do
    >> have the legal right to install software that you purchased.
    >>
    >> Specifically what crime has been committed ?
    >>
    >> Copyright law understands that for software to work, a copy has to be
    >> installed on a computer. It specifically allows for you to install a
    >> copy. There is even language in the law that allows for adaptation to
    >> get the software to work. Installing a copy on the computer of your
    >> choice probably does not break copyright law.
    >>
    >> Licensing means they have you agree to a contract before running the
    >> software for the first time. That contact states that it can only be
    >> installed on Macintosh computers. To do anything else is a breach of
    >> contract. The only thing I see here is that breaking a contract is not
    >> the same as breaking a criminal law.
    >>
    >> People break contracts all the time. It is neither a crime nor a sin.
    >> Sure, there can be penalties, but people don't generally end up in jail
    >> over breaking a contract. Penalties would generally include things like
    >> compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney fees, etc. So by
    >> no means is breaking a contract a trivial thing, but it's not a crime.
    >> Just an everyday contract dispute. And if you bought the software its
    >> difficult for Apple to claim they have a right to damages or compensation.
    >>
    >> The actions taken against Psystar etc have been under the DMCA in the US
    >> for circumvention of the TPMs

    >
    > Good grief!! I'm beginnning to remember why I unsubscribed from this
    > newsgroup. :-\
    >
    > Call it whatever idiotic, pendatic nonsense you like ... the point is you
    > are ONLY allowed to install Mac OS X on an Apple Macintosh computer.
    >
    >

    But it is not illegal as you claimed, it is not a crime and is not
    prosecuted by Apple.
    It's a rule made to be broken obviously judging by articles on respected
    sites like Lifehacker.
     
    victor, Mar 24, 2010
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    "Your Name" <> wrote:
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hoci8c$8ut$-september.org...
    > > Your Name wrote:
    > > > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:hobb0c$feq$-september.org...
    > > >> On 24/03/10 10:16, Your Name wrote:
    > > >>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    > > >>> news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    > > >>>> Your Name wrote:
    > > >>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<_zealand> wrote
    > > > > > > > in
    > > >>> message
    > > >>>>> news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    > > >>>>>> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > > >>>>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    > > >>>>>>
    > > >>>>>> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which
    > > > > > > > > one is
    > > >>> listed
    > > >>>>>> first<http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the
    > > > > > > > > graphics,
    > > > though.
    > > >>> :)
    > > >>>>> Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers
    > > > > > > > so I
    > > > could
    > > >>>>> visit the links.
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>>> That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only"

    > barely
    > > >>>>> recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's
    > > > > > > > just
    > > > another
    > > >>>>> silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>>> Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
    > > >>>> What law does it break ?
    > > >>> Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    > > >>> The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything
    > > > > > other

    > than
    > > > an
    > > >>> Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons
    > > > > > don't

    > take
    > > > any
    > > >>> notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
    > > >>>
    > > >>>
    > > >>>
    > > >>>
    > > >> Assuming you have a legitimately obtained version of the software
    > > > > you

    > do
    > > >> have the legal right to install software that you purchased.
    > > >>
    > > >> Specifically what crime has been committed ?
    > > >>
    > > >> Copyright law understands that for software to work, a copy has
    > > > > to be
    > > >> installed on a computer. It specifically allows for you to
    > > > > install a
    > > >> copy. There is even language in the law that allows for
    > > > > adaptation to
    > > >> get the software to work. Installing a copy on the computer of
    > > > > your
    > > >> choice probably does not break copyright law.
    > > >>
    > > >> Licensing means they have you agree to a contract before running
    > > > > the
    > > >> software for the first time. That contact states that it can only
    > > > > be
    > > >> installed on Macintosh computers. To do anything else is a breach
    > > > > of
    > > >> contract. The only thing I see here is that breaking a contract
    > > > > is not
    > > >> the same as breaking a criminal law.
    > > >>
    > > >> People break contracts all the time. It is neither a crime nor a
    > > > > sin.
    > > >> Sure, there can be penalties, but people don't generally end up
    > > > > in jail
    > > >> over breaking a contract. Penalties would generally include
    > > > > things like
    > > >> compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney fees, etc.
    > > > > So by
    > > >> no means is breaking a contract a trivial thing, but it's not a
    > > > > crime.
    > > >> Just an everyday contract dispute. And if you bought the software
    > > > > its
    > > >> difficult for Apple to claim they have a right to damages or

    > compensation.
    > > >>
    > > >> The actions taken against Psystar etc have been under the DMCA in
    > > > > the

    > US
    > > >> for circumvention of the TPMs
    > > >
    > > > Good grief!! I'm beginnning to remember why I unsubscribed from
    > > > this
    > > > newsgroup. :-\
    > > >
    > > > Call it whatever idiotic, pendatic nonsense you like ... the point
    > > > is

    > you
    > > > are ONLY allowed to install Mac OS X on an Apple Macintosh
    > > > computer.
    > > >
    > > >

    > > But it is not illegal as you claimed, it is not a crime and is not
    > > prosecuted by Apple.
    > > It's a rule made to be broken obviously judging by articles on
    > > respected
    > > sites like Lifehacker.

    >
    > Whatever you want to fool yourself with. :-\
    >
    >

    I'm not the one who said it's illegal.
    Triivia like this is not what the state legal system is intended to deal
    with

    The moment Apple moved to Intel processors it was inevitable.
     
    victor, Mar 24, 2010
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    "victor" <> wrote in message
    news:hoci8c$8ut$-september.org...
    > Your Name wrote:
    > > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > > news:hobb0c$feq$-september.org...
    > >> On 24/03/10 10:16, Your Name wrote:
    > >>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    > >>> news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    > >>>> Your Name wrote:
    > >>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<_zealand> wrote in
    > >>> message
    > >>>>> news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    > >>>>>> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > >>>>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which one is
    > >>> listed
    > >>>>>> first<http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the graphics,

    > > though.
    > >>> :)
    > >>>>> Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers so I

    > > could
    > >>>>> visit the links.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only"

    barely
    > >>>>> recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's just

    > > another
    > >>>>> silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
    > >>>> What law does it break ?
    > >>> Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    > >>> The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything other

    than
    > > an
    > >>> Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons don't

    take
    > > any
    > >>> notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >> Assuming you have a legitimately obtained version of the software you

    do
    > >> have the legal right to install software that you purchased.
    > >>
    > >> Specifically what crime has been committed ?
    > >>
    > >> Copyright law understands that for software to work, a copy has to be
    > >> installed on a computer. It specifically allows for you to install a
    > >> copy. There is even language in the law that allows for adaptation to
    > >> get the software to work. Installing a copy on the computer of your
    > >> choice probably does not break copyright law.
    > >>
    > >> Licensing means they have you agree to a contract before running the
    > >> software for the first time. That contact states that it can only be
    > >> installed on Macintosh computers. To do anything else is a breach of
    > >> contract. The only thing I see here is that breaking a contract is not
    > >> the same as breaking a criminal law.
    > >>
    > >> People break contracts all the time. It is neither a crime nor a sin.
    > >> Sure, there can be penalties, but people don't generally end up in jail
    > >> over breaking a contract. Penalties would generally include things like
    > >> compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney fees, etc. So by
    > >> no means is breaking a contract a trivial thing, but it's not a crime.
    > >> Just an everyday contract dispute. And if you bought the software its
    > >> difficult for Apple to claim they have a right to damages or

    compensation.
    > >>
    > >> The actions taken against Psystar etc have been under the DMCA in the

    US
    > >> for circumvention of the TPMs

    > >
    > > Good grief!! I'm beginnning to remember why I unsubscribed from this
    > > newsgroup. :-\
    > >
    > > Call it whatever idiotic, pendatic nonsense you like ... the point is

    you
    > > are ONLY allowed to install Mac OS X on an Apple Macintosh computer.
    > >
    > >

    > But it is not illegal as you claimed, it is not a crime and is not
    > prosecuted by Apple.
    > It's a rule made to be broken obviously judging by articles on respected
    > sites like Lifehacker.


    Whatever you want to fool yourself with. :-\
     
    Your Name, Mar 24, 2010
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    In article <hodsu9$fel$-september.org>, victor
    <> wrote:

    > "Your Name" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > > news:hoci8c$8ut$-september.org...
    > > > Your Name wrote:
    > > > > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:hobb0c$feq$-september.org...
    > > > >> On 24/03/10 10:16, Your Name wrote:
    > > > >>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    > > > >>> news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    > > > >>>> Your Name wrote:
    > > > >>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<_zealand> wrote
    > > > > > > > > in
    > > > >>> message
    > > > >>>>> news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    > > > >>>>>> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > > > >>>>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    > > > >>>>>>
    > > > >>>>>> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which
    > > > > > > > > > one is
    > > > >>> listed
    > > > >>>>>> first<http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the
    > > > > > > > > > graphics,
    > > > > though.
    > > > >>> :)
    > > > >>>>> Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers
    > > > > > > > > so I
    > > > > could
    > > > >>>>> visit the links.
    > > > >>>>>
    > > > >>>>> That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only"

    > > barely
    > > > >>>>> recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's
    > > > > > > > > just
    > > > > another
    > > > >>>>> silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    > > > >>>>>
    > > > >>>>> Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
    > > > >>>> What law does it break ?
    > > > >>> Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    > > > >>> The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything
    > > > > > > other

    > > than
    > > > > an
    > > > >>> Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons
    > > > > > > don't

    > > take
    > > > > any
    > > > >>> notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
    > > > >>>
    > > > >>>
    > > > >>>
    > > > >>>
    > > > >> Assuming you have a legitimately obtained version of the software
    > > > > > you

    > > do
    > > > >> have the legal right to install software that you purchased.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Specifically what crime has been committed ?
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Copyright law understands that for software to work, a copy has
    > > > > > to be
    > > > >> installed on a computer. It specifically allows for you to
    > > > > > install a
    > > > >> copy. There is even language in the law that allows for
    > > > > > adaptation to
    > > > >> get the software to work. Installing a copy on the computer of
    > > > > > your
    > > > >> choice probably does not break copyright law.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> Licensing means they have you agree to a contract before running
    > > > > > the
    > > > >> software for the first time. That contact states that it can only
    > > > > > be
    > > > >> installed on Macintosh computers. To do anything else is a breach
    > > > > > of
    > > > >> contract. The only thing I see here is that breaking a contract
    > > > > > is not
    > > > >> the same as breaking a criminal law.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> People break contracts all the time. It is neither a crime nor a
    > > > > > sin.
    > > > >> Sure, there can be penalties, but people don't generally end up
    > > > > > in jail
    > > > >> over breaking a contract. Penalties would generally include
    > > > > > things like
    > > > >> compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney fees, etc.
    > > > > > So by
    > > > >> no means is breaking a contract a trivial thing, but it's not a
    > > > > > crime.
    > > > >> Just an everyday contract dispute. And if you bought the software
    > > > > > its
    > > > >> difficult for Apple to claim they have a right to damages or

    > > compensation.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> The actions taken against Psystar etc have been under the DMCA in
    > > > > > the

    > > US
    > > > >> for circumvention of the TPMs
    > > > >
    > > > > Good grief!! I'm beginnning to remember why I unsubscribed from
    > > > > this
    > > > > newsgroup. :-\
    > > > >
    > > > > Call it whatever idiotic, pendatic nonsense you like ... the point
    > > > > is

    > > you
    > > > > are ONLY allowed to install Mac OS X on an Apple Macintosh
    > > > > computer.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > But it is not illegal as you claimed, it is not a crime and is not
    > > > prosecuted by Apple.
    > > > It's a rule made to be broken obviously judging by articles on
    > > > respected
    > > > sites like Lifehacker.

    > >
    > > Whatever you want to fool yourself with. :-\
    > >
    > >

    > I'm not the one who said it's illegal.
    > Triivia like this is not what the state legal system is intended to deal
    > with
    >
    > The moment Apple moved to Intel processors it was inevitable.


    Whatever statisfies your scumbag "I'll do whatever I want" attitude. :-\
     
    Your Name, Mar 25, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 25/03/10 14:28, Your Name wrote:
    > In article<hodsu9$fel$-september.org>, victor
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Your Name"<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:hoci8c$8ut$-september.org...
    >>>> Your Name wrote:
    >>>>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hobb0c$feq$-september.org...
    >>>>>> On 24/03/10 10:16, Your Name wrote:
    >>>>>>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>> Your Name wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<_zealand> wrote
    >>>>>>>>> in
    >>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>>>> news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    >>>>>>>>>> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    >>>>>>>>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which
    >>>>>>>>>> one is
    >>>>>>> listed
    >>>>>>>>>> first<http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the
    >>>>>>>>>> graphics,
    >>>>> though.
    >>>>>>> :)
    >>>>>>>>> Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers
    >>>>>>>>> so I
    >>>>> could
    >>>>>>>>> visit the links.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only"
    >>> barely
    >>>>>>>>> recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's
    >>>>>>>>> just
    >>>>> another
    >>>>>>>>> silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
    >>>>>>>> What law does it break ?
    >>>>>>> Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    >>>>>>> The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything
    >>>>>>> other
    >>> than
    >>>>> an
    >>>>>>> Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons
    >>>>>>> don't
    >>> take
    >>>>> any
    >>>>>>> notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Assuming you have a legitimately obtained version of the software
    >>>>>> you
    >>> do
    >>>>>> have the legal right to install software that you purchased.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Specifically what crime has been committed ?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Copyright law understands that for software to work, a copy has
    >>>>>> to be
    >>>>>> installed on a computer. It specifically allows for you to
    >>>>>> install a
    >>>>>> copy. There is even language in the law that allows for
    >>>>>> adaptation to
    >>>>>> get the software to work. Installing a copy on the computer of
    >>>>>> your
    >>>>>> choice probably does not break copyright law.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Licensing means they have you agree to a contract before running
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> software for the first time. That contact states that it can only
    >>>>>> be
    >>>>>> installed on Macintosh computers. To do anything else is a breach
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> contract. The only thing I see here is that breaking a contract
    >>>>>> is not
    >>>>>> the same as breaking a criminal law.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> People break contracts all the time. It is neither a crime nor a
    >>>>>> sin.
    >>>>>> Sure, there can be penalties, but people don't generally end up
    >>>>>> in jail
    >>>>>> over breaking a contract. Penalties would generally include
    >>>>>> things like
    >>>>>> compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney fees, etc.
    >>>>>> So by
    >>>>>> no means is breaking a contract a trivial thing, but it's not a
    >>>>>> crime.
    >>>>>> Just an everyday contract dispute. And if you bought the software
    >>>>>> its
    >>>>>> difficult for Apple to claim they have a right to damages or
    >>> compensation.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The actions taken against Psystar etc have been under the DMCA in
    >>>>>> the
    >>> US
    >>>>>> for circumvention of the TPMs
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Good grief!! I'm beginnning to remember why I unsubscribed from
    >>>>> this
    >>>>> newsgroup. :-\
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Call it whatever idiotic, pendatic nonsense you like ... the point
    >>>>> is
    >>> you
    >>>>> are ONLY allowed to install Mac OS X on an Apple Macintosh
    >>>>> computer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> But it is not illegal as you claimed, it is not a crime and is not
    >>>> prosecuted by Apple.
    >>>> It's a rule made to be broken obviously judging by articles on
    >>>> respected
    >>>> sites like Lifehacker.
    >>>
    >>> Whatever you want to fool yourself with. :-\
    >>>
    >>>

    >> I'm not the one who said it's illegal.
    >> Triivia like this is not what the state legal system is intended to deal
    >> with
    >>
    >> The moment Apple moved to Intel processors it was inevitable.

    >
    > Whatever statisfies your scumbag "I'll do whatever I want" attitude. :-\


    I'm not at all interested in building a hackintosh.
    I'm just saying that calling it "illegal" is stupid unless you can back
    it up with one single instance of prosecution under copyright or
    "licensing laws".
    I take it from your ad hominem attacks that all you have to offer is
    derogatory insults and you are incapable of rational discussion.
     
    victor, Mar 25, 2010
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Your Name Guest

    In article <hoef3i$col$-september.org>, victor
    <> wrote:

    > On 25/03/10 14:28, Your Name wrote:
    > > In article<hodsu9$fel$-september.org>, victor
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Your Name"<> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    > >>> news:hoci8c$8ut$-september.org...
    > >>>> Your Name wrote:
    > >>>>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    > >>>>> news:hobb0c$feq$-september.org...
    > >>>>>> On 24/03/10 10:16, Your Name wrote:
    > >>>>>>> "victor"<> wrote in message
    > >>>>>>> news:ho9n9v$rhs$-september.org...
    > >>>>>>>> Your Name wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"<_zealand> wrote
    > >>>>>>>>> in
    > >>>>>>> message
    > >>>>>>>>> news:ho8o95$pa1$...
    > >>>>>>>>>> I think it's a bit bigger than the original 64
    > >>>>>>>>>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=1833>.
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> Still, they're going to offer a choice of OSes. Guess which
    > >>>>>>>>>> one is
    > >>>>>>> listed
    > >>>>>>>>>> first<http://www.commodoreusa.net/os.html>. Love the
    > >>>>>>>>>> graphics,
    > >>>>> though.
    > >>>>>>> :)
    > >>>>>>>>> Hopeless Vodafone finally (semi-)fixed their useless servers
    > >>>>>>>>> so I
    > >>>>> could
    > >>>>>>>>> visit the links.
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> That's the same as all of Hollyweird's hopeless "in name only"
    > >>> barely
    > >>>>>>>>> recognisable 'remakes'. It is in no way a "Commodore", it's
    > >>>>>>>>> just
    > >>>>> another
    > >>>>>>>>> silly Windoze PC masqurading behind the once great name. :-(
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> Installing Mac OS X on it is illegal.
    > >>>>>>>> What law does it break ?
    > >>>>>>> Copyright and licensing laws for a start.
    > >>>>>>> The license clearly states you cannot install it on anything
    > >>>>>>> other
    > >>> than
    > >>>>> an
    > >>>>>>> Apple computer ... of course, pirate scum and selfish morons
    > >>>>>>> don't
    > >>> take
    > >>>>> any
    > >>>>>>> notice of such things and will do whatever they want anyway.
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Assuming you have a legitimately obtained version of the software
    > >>>>>> you
    > >>> do
    > >>>>>> have the legal right to install software that you purchased.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Specifically what crime has been committed ?
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Copyright law understands that for software to work, a copy has
    > >>>>>> to be
    > >>>>>> installed on a computer. It specifically allows for you to
    > >>>>>> install a
    > >>>>>> copy. There is even language in the law that allows for
    > >>>>>> adaptation to
    > >>>>>> get the software to work. Installing a copy on the computer of
    > >>>>>> your
    > >>>>>> choice probably does not break copyright law.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Licensing means they have you agree to a contract before running
    > >>>>>> the
    > >>>>>> software for the first time. That contact states that it can only
    > >>>>>> be
    > >>>>>> installed on Macintosh computers. To do anything else is a breach
    > >>>>>> of
    > >>>>>> contract. The only thing I see here is that breaking a contract
    > >>>>>> is not
    > >>>>>> the same as breaking a criminal law.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> People break contracts all the time. It is neither a crime nor a
    > >>>>>> sin.
    > >>>>>> Sure, there can be penalties, but people don't generally end up
    > >>>>>> in jail
    > >>>>>> over breaking a contract. Penalties would generally include
    > >>>>>> things like
    > >>>>>> compensatory damages, consequential damages, attorney fees, etc.
    > >>>>>> So by
    > >>>>>> no means is breaking a contract a trivial thing, but it's not a
    > >>>>>> crime.
    > >>>>>> Just an everyday contract dispute. And if you bought the software
    > >>>>>> its
    > >>>>>> difficult for Apple to claim they have a right to damages or
    > >>> compensation.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> The actions taken against Psystar etc have been under the DMCA in
    > >>>>>> the
    > >>> US
    > >>>>>> for circumvention of the TPMs
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Good grief!! I'm beginnning to remember why I unsubscribed from
    > >>>>> this
    > >>>>> newsgroup. :-\
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Call it whatever idiotic, pendatic nonsense you like ... the point
    > >>>>> is
    > >>> you
    > >>>>> are ONLY allowed to install Mac OS X on an Apple Macintosh
    > >>>>> computer.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>> But it is not illegal as you claimed, it is not a crime and is not
    > >>>> prosecuted by Apple.
    > >>>> It's a rule made to be broken obviously judging by articles on
    > >>>> respected
    > >>>> sites like Lifehacker.
    > >>>
    > >>> Whatever you want to fool yourself with. :-\
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >> I'm not the one who said it's illegal.
    > >> Triivia like this is not what the state legal system is intended to deal
    > >> with
    > >>
    > >> The moment Apple moved to Intel processors it was inevitable.

    > >
    > > Whatever statisfies your scumbag "I'll do whatever I want" attitude. :-\

    >
    > I'm not at all interested in building a hackintosh.
    > I'm just saying that calling it "illegal" is stupid unless you can back
    > it up with one single instance of prosecution under copyright or
    > "licensing laws".
    > I take it from your ad hominem attacks that all you have to offer is
    > derogatory insults and you are incapable of rational discussion.


    Whatever makes your tiny brain happy. :-\
     
    Your Name, Mar 25, 2010
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Commodore...Back With A Vengeance! @ ThinkComputers.org

    Silverstrand, Jan 9, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    637
    Silverstrand
    Jan 9, 2006
  2. Ionizer

    Commodore 64 - A New Computer

    Ionizer, Jan 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    493
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Jan 13, 2005
  3. Au79

    TROJAN rides in on unpatched Office flaw

    Au79, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    512
    Fred Tehbot
    Oct 2, 2005
  4. Kted

    Mr Bean Rides Again?

    Kted, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    583
  5. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    462
    DVD Verdict
    Dec 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page