bullshit you were testing, but regardless, you locked yourself out by
your own actions and want to blame others.

the same would happen if you tried to connect to google, banks and many
other companies from a russia vpn, or even a local vpn. some companies
take security very seriously.

> Bear in mind there's _nothing_ wrong with my login.
> Nothing wrong with my password.

except for it being disposable and you don't remember it, which you
readily admit.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 1:01:42 PM2/20/22

to

On 2022-02-20 11:58 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>>> <https://i.postimg.cc/SKGfmgnK/appleid05.jpg> Apple won't let you
>>> back in!
>>
>> It's traditional on a login screen, to NOT give any clues why the
>> login was unsuccessful, don't want to help the bad guys know the
>> difference between non-existent/locked-out/wrong-password etc.
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for trying to advise me but I already know why Apple locked me out.
> I was _testing_ what Apple would do if I logged in using VPN.
> (Just like I've tested what Google GMail does when you log in on VPN.)

If Apple merely locked you out because you were using a VPN, that's
quite shocking but it is probably the result of them expecting that you
would log on from one location and suddenly finding it odd that you're
logging in from another at a significant distance from the first. If
they know you to be a person living in Chicago, for instance, then they
would find it abnormal for you to suddenly be logging in from Miami. I
imagine that you set the VPN for a different city, of course. It's
hypersensitive but I imagine that a lot of users would find it
understandable as a security measure.

> The question here is whether Microsoft _can_ do the same things to you.
> Now that Microsoft is _forcing_ a login/password into their servers.

They can, but they probably won't since Windows is generally the default
operating system for business users and these people are expected to
travel and be in different locations at different times.

> Rest assured I _know_ why Apple locked me out (as I was testing what they'd
> do when I used VPN, from Russia no less!) when forced to _re_ validate my
> identity.
>
> Bear in mind there's _nothing_ wrong with my login.
> Nothing wrong with my password.
>
> Apple knows this.
> Apple let's me use the App Store every day.
> I even loaded the latest operating system just a week ago.
>
> There's nothing wrong with my login nor with my password.
> And that's my point.
>
> For whatever reason, Apple wants me to _re_ validate who I am. Every
> single day.

Yes, because they want to make sure that the reason you're logging in
from a significant distance from your general location is because you've
traveled, not because your hardware has been stolen or your credentials
hacked by someone living on the other side of the world. It's a very
understandable situation and frankly, I applaud them for being careful.
Once you're logged in, I imagine you didn't face any further issues.

> *Can Microsoft do the same thing?*
> That.
>
> That is the question.
>
> This is an _important_ question about Microsoft - not about Apple.
> The only reason for bringing up Apple is that Apple _does_ lock you out.
>
> Hence the question is whether Microsoft can.
>
> Given this is a question about Microsoft, please don't get me wrong as I am
> rather intelligent, as are you, but it's not obvious my question is about
> the _power_ that Microsoft attains when they now _force_ a login.
>
> Apple forces the same login.
> Worse - Apple forces a periodic _validation_ of your login.
> Even worse, if you refuse to _re_ validate - Apple cripples your device!

They might do that on an iPhone but they're not likely to do that on a
Mac onto which you can easily just reinstall a separate OS or reinstall
MacOS if ever you no longer have the credentials for the original user.

> Don't get me wrong as I'm not complaining about Apple. I was _testing_
> Apple
> by not logging into my iPad for four years (even as I used it daily).
>
> Every day for the latter two years, Apple nagged me to "re" verify.
> Not verify. But _re_ verify. (as in verify again)
>
> Bear in mind the facts that Apple lets me install apps on the App Store
> which requires a valid login, so Apple has no problem with my login.
>
> Bear in mind Apple lets me delete Siri recordings so Apple has no problem
> collecting my Siri recordings (and allowing me to delete collected data).
>
> Bear in mind Apple even let me install the latest new operating system.
>
> So there is _nothing_ wrong with the forced login account, of itself.
> What's "wrong" is that for whatever reason, Apple wants me to _re_ verify.
>
> I refuse to _re_ verify (as a test of what Apple would do).
> I found out that Apple has the power to permanently lock up your device.
>
> Sure, they probably did that because I used a VPN to _re_ verify.
> But that isn't my point as I was _testing_ what Apple would do.
>
> The fact is Apple did it. [See proof in sig where you know I'm
> intelligent.]
> Apple unilaterally permanently _locked_ me out of my own hardware.
>
> OK. No big deal. That's what I get for _testing_ what Apple will do.
> I'm not complaining.
>
> What I'm _asking_ here is whether Microsoft "can" do the same thing to you?
> Can they?

Of course they can but they probably won't. You do make a good case for
why local accounts should be prioritized over cloud ones like what Apple
and Microsoft are both pushing now though. The problem is that only
Linux is still going the local route whereas everyone else is saying
that cloud should be the default. There are tons of advantages to using
the cloud approach since data can easily be migrated and synced from one
device to another but it is also clearly less advantageous in regards to
who truly controls the device or even your data.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 1:05:29 PM2/20/22

to

On 2022-02-20 12:09 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <suts0h$rdj$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Rest assured I _know_ why Apple locked me out (as I was testing what they'd
>> do when I used VPN, from Russia no less!) when forced to _re_ validate my
>> identity.
>
> bullshit you were testing, but regardless, you locked yourself out by
> your own actions and want to blame others.
>
> the same would happen if you tried to connect to google, banks and many
> other companies from a russia vpn, or even a local vpn. some companies
> take security very seriously.

Agreed here. In fact, I would dare to say that he didn't simply change
from one location to another through the VPN as I stated previously but
that he went from one city to another and another and another until
Apple's security triggered his behaviour as suspicious. I had the same
kind happen to me using a VPN with sports service DAZN. I was curious as
to what content was available in each country so I tried Germany,
England, the United States and so on until the service flagged my
behaviour as suspicious and, like Apple, asked me to log in again from
my original Canadian location.

< snip >

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 3:38:04 PM2/20/22

to

rabidR04CH wrote:

> Agreed here.

The question in this thread isn't about Apple. It's about Microsoft.
*Can Microsoft now lock up your device if you refuse to re-validate?*

Even if we discuss Apple (which we don't need to do), nospam is wrong.
What nospam does is fabricate any excuse for what he _hates_ about Apple.

The fact is clear what Apple is trying to do (didn't you look at the pics?)
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

What nospam say is bullshit because he is wrong about everything he said.
Look at the screenshot above. It's clear _exactly_ what Apple wants to do.

Besides...
This isn't about iKooks' endless fabrications in support of Apple anyway.

I don't care that Apple permanently locked up my iPads in the least.
What I _learned_ is what matters for the purpose of this thread.

*Because of the required login, Apple has the power to disable your PC!*

If Apple can do it (as Apple _does_ do it), why can't Microsoft?

> from one location to another through the VPN as I stated previously but
> that he went from one city to another and another and another until
> Apple's security triggered his behaviour as suspicious. I had the same
> kind happen to me using a VPN with sports service DAZN. I was curious as
> to what content was available in each country so I tried Germany,
> England, the United States and so on until the service flagged my
> behaviour as suspicious and, like Apple, asked me to log in again from
> my original Canadian location.

You didn't look at a _single_ screenshot as that is _not_ what happened.
Look at this screenshot again which shows _exactly_ what Apple is up to.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

Apple wants you to _periodically_ update all your settings with them.
And that's fine as I wanted to see what happens if you refuse that demand.

Just like Finland wanted to see what happens when they refused Russia's
demands and just like the Ukraine is going to find out refusing anew.

Remember, I don't care that Apple locked up the iPads, one by one.
What I care about for this thread is whether M$ can do the same thing.

Can they?
*Can Microsoft now lock up your device if you refuse to re-validate?*

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 3:44:57 PM2/20/22

to

rabidR04CH wrote:

> If Apple merely locked you out because you were using a VPN

<shakes head>

Look. This thread isn't asking about Apple - it's asking about M$.
*With the new login requirement, _can_ Microsoft do what Apple does?*

That is, Apple _requires_ you to periodically _validate_ your login.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

The VPN issue happens _later_ (didn't you look at _any_ of the pics)?
Besides, it doesn't matter why Apple unilaterally destroyed my iPad.

What matters is the question in this thread now that M$ forces the login.
*Can Microsoft also lock you out of your PC in Windows 11 or not?*

> quite shocking but it is probably the result of them expecting that you
> would log on from one location and suddenly finding it odd that you're
> logging in from another at a significant distance from the first.

It has _nothing_ to do with that.

Stop listening to the bullshit that nospam spews because he _hates_ Apple.
More specifically, nospam _hates_ what Apple is so he fabricates that crap.
He will defend Apple to the death by blaming the user for everything.

If you didn't look at the pictures, at least _look_ at this one shot.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
The fact is clear what Apple is trying to do!

But that doesn't matter because I don't care what Apple does to my iPads.
What I want to know in this thread is whether Microsoft can do that to me.

Can they?

> they know you to be a person living in Chicago, for instance, then they
> would find it abnormal for you to suddenly be logging in from Miami. I
> imagine that you set the VPN for a different city, of course. It's
> hypersensitive but I imagine that a lot of users would find it
> understandable as a security measure.

The VPN issue happened _two years_ after the original issues.
Didn't you _look_ at any of the screenshots?

Or do you only listen to nospam (who is a world class bullshitter).
That nospam will defend Apple to the death, no matter what.

Anyway, this isn't about Apple.
It's about Microsoft.

*Now that Microsoft requires a login, can they lock up your PC too?*

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 3:55:11 PM2/20/22

to

nospam wrote:

> the same would happen if you tried to connect to google, banks and many
> other companies from a russia vpn, or even a local vpn. some companies
> take security very seriously.

Wrong. Look at the pictures. You make up excuses for Apple that are garbage.
The VPN happens later. Way later. Years later in fact.

What happened can happen in Windows now that they _force_ a login.
1. Apple forced a login and I gave it to them
2. Two years go by and Apple forces a _re_ validation!
3. Two years later, Apple locks up the iPads

It's in the _unlock_ step _after_ two years that I used the VPN.
And I gave it the correct login and correct password (the shots prove that).

For whatever reason, Apple didn't unlock their permanent lockup.
I don't care. They're just iPads. I have plenty of them. Two are affected.
I still have a third.

That Apple does this isn't up for debate as it's a fact what Apple does.

The question is only whether Microsoft can do the same thing to its users.
Can they?

>> Bear in mind there's _nothing_ wrong with my login.
>> Nothing wrong with my password.
>
> except for it being disposable and you don't remember it, which you
> readily admit.

1. It's the correct login and password (which the pictures prove).
2. Besides, I'm still logged into the iCloud (I never logged out).
3. It's _Apple_ who requires the _re_ validation step.

Anyway, you _hate_ all facts about Apple so you are wasting our time.
You _despise_ what Apple does so much that you lie for Apple, nospam.

This thread isn't about Apple.
It's about whether or not Microsoft will do the sleazy things Apple does.

Now that Microsoft is forcing the requirement of a login on every user.

nospam

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 4:06:58 PM2/20/22

to

In article <suu9rd$1tpn$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> > the same would happen if you tried to connect to google, banks and many
> > other companies from a russia vpn, or even a local vpn. some companies
> > take security very seriously.
>
> Wrong. Look at the pictures. You make up excuses for Apple that are garbage.

except that apple does not appear in the above sentence.

> The VPN happens later. Way later. Years later in fact.

that doesn't matter. simply connecting with a vpn raises suspicions.

> >> Bear in mind there's _nothing_ wrong with my login.
> >> Nothing wrong with my password.
> >
> > except for it being disposable and you don't remember it, which you
> > readily admit.
>
> 1. It's the correct login and password (which the pictures prove).

it can't prove anything because that info is hidden.

> 2. Besides, I'm still logged into the iCloud (I never logged out).

if that were true, it would not ask you to log in again.

you're contradicting yourself. no surprise there.

your scripts are still broken.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 6:28:46 PM2/20/22

to

Am 20.02.22 um 22:06 schrieb nospam:

> In article <suu9rd$1tpn$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> the same would happen if you tried to connect to google, banks and many
>>> other companies from a russia vpn, or even a local vpn. some companies
>>> take security very seriously.
>>
>> Wrong. Look at the pictures. You make up excuses for Apple that are garbage.
>
> except that apple does not appear in the above sentence.
>
>> The VPN happens later. Way later. Years later in fact.
>
> that doesn't matter. simply connecting with a vpn raises suspicions.

Only in the US. Deep state they call it.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 9:38:52 PM2/20/22

to

On 2022-02-20 3:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> Agreed here.
>
> The question in this thread isn't about Apple. It's about Microsoft.
> *Can Microsoft now lock up your device if you refuse to re-validate?*
>
> Even if we discuss Apple (which we don't need to do), nospam is wrong.
> What nospam does is fabricate any excuse for what he _hates_ about Apple.

It's pretty clear by now that nospam is indeed a liar who will say just
about anything to defend Apple, including trying to completely rewrite
history in Apple's favour.

> The fact is clear what Apple is trying to do (didn't you look at the pics?)
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

The pics are worthless without context. You have to explain what you did
to get to that point and not just show a picture of the end result.

> What nospam say is bullshit because he is wrong about everything he said.
> Look at the screenshot above. It's clear _exactly_ what Apple wants to do.
>
> Besides... This isn't about iKooks' endless fabrications in support of
> Apple anyway.
>
> I don't care that Apple permanently locked up my iPads in the least.
> What I _learned_ is what matters for the purpose of this thread.
>
> *Because of the required login, Apple has the power to disable your PC!*
>
> If Apple can do it (as Apple _does_ do it), why can't Microsoft?

Since Windows machines, unlike Apple machines, make it fairly easy to
install something other than Windows, I doubt that they would ever set
any of them in such a way that they would be disabled merely because
Microsoft was unhappy about something you were doing. They might lock up
the OS, but not the hardware. Surface devices are another story.

>> from one location to another through the VPN as I stated previously
>> but that he went from one city to another and another and another
>> until Apple's security triggered his behaviour as suspicious. I had
>> the same kind happen to me using a VPN with sports service DAZN. I was
>> curious as to what content was available in each country so I tried
>> Germany, England, the United States and so on until the service
>> flagged my behaviour as suspicious and, like Apple, asked me to log in
>> again from my original Canadian location.
>
> You didn't look at a _single_ screenshot as that is _not_ what happened.

I looked at _all_ of the screenshots but you provided zero context as to
how you got to that result.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 9:42:59 PM2/20/22

to

On 2022-02-20 3:44 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> If Apple merely locked you out because you were using a VPN
>
> <shakes head>
>
> Look. This thread isn't asking about Apple - it's asking about M$.
> *With the new login requirement, _can_ Microsoft do what Apple does?*
>
> That is, Apple _requires_ you to periodically _validate_ your login.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
>
> The VPN issue happens _later_ (didn't you look at _any_ of the pics)?
> Besides, it doesn't matter why Apple unilaterally destroyed my iPad.
>
> What matters is the question in this thread now that M$ forces the login.
> *Can Microsoft also lock you out of your PC in Windows 11 or not?*

No. They can lock you out of _Windows_, but not the hardware.

>> quite shocking but it is probably the result of them expecting that
>> you would log on from one location and suddenly finding it odd that
>> you're logging in from another at a significant distance from the first.
>
> It has _nothing_ to do with that.
>
> Stop listening to the bullshit that nospam spews because he _hates_ Apple.
> More specifically, nospam _hates_ what Apple is so he fabricates that crap.
> He will defend Apple to the death by blaming the user for everything.
>
> If you didn't look at the pictures, at least _look_ at this one shot.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
> The fact is clear what Apple is trying to do!
>
> But that doesn't matter because I don't care what Apple does to my iPads.
> What I want to know in this thread is whether Microsoft can do that to me.
>
> Can they?

I don't think you're looking for an answer as much as to get people to
look at your worthless pics, all provided without context.

>> they know you to be a person living in Chicago, for instance, then
>> they would find it abnormal for you to suddenly be logging in from
>> Miami. I imagine that you set the VPN for a different city, of course.
>> It's hypersensitive but I imagine that a lot of users would find it
>> understandable as a security measure.
>
> The VPN issue happened _two years_ after the original issues.
> Didn't you _look_ at any of the screenshots?
>
> Or do you only listen to nospam (who is a world class bullshitter).
> That nospam will defend Apple to the death, no matter what.
>
> Anyway, this isn't about Apple. It's about Microsoft.
>
> *Now that Microsoft requires a login, can they lock up your PC too?*

How can you say that it's not about Apple when all you're doing is
complaining about Apple and then asking whether Microsoft will
potentially be as bad?

Seriously though, instead of spending so much money on hardware that you
purposely lock yourself out of, consider spending that money on the
psychiatric medication you've clearly run out of.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 9:47:24 PM2/20/22

to

On 2022-02-20 4:06 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <suu9rd$1tpn$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> the same would happen if you tried to connect to google, banks and many
>>> other companies from a russia vpn, or even a local vpn. some companies
>>> take security very seriously.
>>
>> Wrong. Look at the pictures. You make up excuses for Apple that are garbage.
>
> except that apple does not appear in the above sentence.
>
>> The VPN happens later. Way later. Years later in fact.
>
> that doesn't matter. simply connecting with a vpn raises suspicions.

Exactly. Most sites with information that is deemed highly sensitive
also have a database of which IP pools belong to VPNs. When you log into
such a site from such an IP, it makes sense that they would be extra
careful. Apple is no different in this respect and frankly much better
about protecting the user than Windows, Linux or even the companies
peddling security products in many respects.

>>>> Bear in mind there's _nothing_ wrong with my login.
>>>> Nothing wrong with my password.
>>>
>>> except for it being disposable and you don't remember it, which you
>>> readily admit.
>>
>> 1. It's the correct login and password (which the pictures prove).
>
> it can't prove anything because that info is hidden.
>
>> 2. Besides, I'm still logged into the iCloud (I never logged out).
>
> if that were true, it would not ask you to log in again.
>
> you're contradicting yourself. no surprise there.
>
> your scripts are still broken.

I have to agree with nospam here.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 9:57:35 PM2/20/22

to

No, it raises suspicions just about anywhere. People don't see it as a
person merely trying to protect his IP address from attackers; they
assume that it's a thief pretending to be a specific user in order to
steal their identity. They're right to do so, either way, as it helps to
prevents serious financial damage.

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 11:16:40 PM2/20/22

to

rabidR04CH wrote:

> The pics are worthless without context. You have to explain what you did
> to get to that point and not just show a picture of the end result.

You actually seem to be close to a normal person so I apologize for treating
you like I treat the iKooks (who drank the Apple Jim-Jones punch long ago).

The SUBJECT here is what matters as I don't need to prove to you that Apple
can (and does) lock you out of your own device, as you already know that.

Don't you?
The question here is an adult observation that if Apple can, why can't MS?f

>> If Apple can do it (as Apple _does_ do it), why can't Microsoft?
>
> Since Windows machines, unlike Apple machines, make it fairly easy to
> install something other than Windows, I doubt that they would ever set
> any of them in such a way that they would be disabled merely because
> Microsoft was unhappy about something you were doing.

The question here is whether MS can pull the same sleazy tricks as Apple?
Can they?

For example:
a. You have hardware setup #1 with boot disk #1 and Windows 11 license #1
b. For whatever reason, Microsoft pulls the Apple sleazy lockout trick
c. Does substituting a new boot disk #1 on hardware #1 re-engage license #1?

> They might lock up
> the OS, but not the hardware. Surface devices are another story.

This is an adult observation that if Microsoft _tried_ to lock you out of
your own machine, they'd have to do it in a way that you couldn't subvert.

Like just installing a new boot drive.
But the adult question to ask is whether Microsoft could lock that up too?

For example, this is a logical related adult question to ask:

Can Microsoft prevent you from installing the Windows 11 you _already_ paid
for on that new boot drive?

> I looked at _all_ of the screenshots but you provided zero context as to
> how you got to that result.

What doesn't matter for this thread is _how_ I got to that result.
Suffice to say that nobody on the Apple ngs can get it out of that result.
But that doesn't matter to me because I was _testing_ what Apple would do.
I know more than any of those iKooks as a direct result of that test.

Apple _will_ force you to re-validate your login if you don't use it often.
Apple _will_ lock you out of your own hardware if they don't like your VPN.

That's just a fact that you need to know "can" (and does) happen.
The question here is whether MS can pull the same sleazy tricks as Apple?

Can they?

For example:
a. You have hardware setup #1 with boot disk #1 and Windows 11 license #1
b. For whatever reason, Microsoft pulls the Apple sleazy lockout trick
c. Does substituting a new boot disk #1 on hardware #1 re-engage license #1?

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 11:19:23 PM2/20/22

to

nospam wrote:

>> The VPN happens later. Way later. Years later in fact.
>
> that doesn't matter. simply connecting with a vpn raises suspicions.

Clearly Apple permanently destroys your equipment on a mere whim.
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
*What's to stop MS from destroying your PC like Apple does, on a mere whim?*
<https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>

Three _adult_ points, _without_ needing any Apple examples are...
1. If Microsoft now forces a login on we users
2. Then what's to stop Microsoft from locking us out of our own computers
3. Much like Google Gmail will if you don't _exactly_ follow _their_ rules?

An adult point _with_ Apple is...
A. If Apple can force you to re-verify yourself on a whim (which they do)
B. What's to stop Microsoft from forcing a re-verification on a similar whim
C. And, depending on your IP address alone, Microsoft will destroy your PC

Google does it...
Apple does it far worse than does Google (as they destroy the hardware!)
What's to stop MS from destroying your PC like Apple does, on a mere whim?

For example:
a. You have hardware setup #1 with boot disk #1 and Windows 11 license #1
b. For whatever reason, Microsoft pulls the Apple sleazy lockout trick

c. Does substituting a new boot disk #2 on hardware #1 re-engage license #1?

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Feb 20, 2022, 11:39:02 PM2/20/22

to

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> The question here is whether MS can pull the same sleazy tricks as Apple?
> Can they?
>
> For example:
> a. You have hardware setup #1 with boot disk #1 and Windows 11 license #1
> b. For whatever reason, Microsoft pulls the Apple sleazy lockout trick
> c. Does substituting a new boot disk #1 on hardware #1 re-engage license #1?

I made a mistake on the numbering so I repeat the question being asked here:

a. You have hardware setup #1 with boot disk #1 and Windows 11 license #1
b. For whatever reason, Microsoft pulls the Apple sleazy lockout trick

c. Does substituting _boot disk #2_ on hardware #1 re-engage license #1?

If yes, then Microsoft _can_ pull the same sleazy lockout trick as does Apple.

Andy Burnelli

>>> If Apple can do it (as Apple _does_ do it), why can't Microsoft?
>>
>> Since Windows machines, unlike Apple machines, make it fairly easy to
>> install something other than Windows, I doubt that they would ever set
>> any of them in such a way that they would be disabled merely because
>> Microsoft was unhappy about something you were doing.
>
> The question here is whether MS can pull the same sleazy tricks as Apple?
> Can they?
>
> For example:
> a. You have hardware setup #1 with boot disk #1 and Windows 11 license #1
> b. For whatever reason, Microsoft pulls the Apple sleazy lockout trick
> c. Does substituting a new boot disk #1 on hardware #1 re-engage license
> #1?

Speaking as someone who _has_ been locked out of his Windows system
several times, I can say that Microsoft will do so. On this particular
machine which came with Windows 8.1, I eventually installed Windows 10
through the free upgrade and upgraded with a Pro license. Things
happened, as they always do, and I decided to install a clean version of
Windows 10 on it sometimes using the product key saved to the BIOS or
the Pro key, depending on the situation. On repeated occasions, Windows
would tell me that my license is not valid and that I would need to
purchase one. Clearly, that is annoying behaviour.

However, there are two possibilities to this: 1) Microsoft was expecting
me to send them the product key saved to the BIOS and I sent them
something different (confusion between the key I purchased and the one
bundled with the machine), 2) the product key was never actually saved
to the system despite it being entered upon installation.

Whatever the reason, the result is the same and that is why I am very
sympathetic to Linux as well since it doesn't bother me with licenses at
all.

>> They might lock up the OS, but not the hardware. Surface devices are
>> another story.
>
> This is an adult observation that if Microsoft _tried_ to lock you out of
> your own machine, they'd have to do it in a way that you couldn't subvert.
>
> Like just installing a new boot drive.
> But the adult question to ask is whether Microsoft could lock that up too?
>
> For example, this is a logical related adult question to ask:
>
> Can Microsoft prevent you from installing the Windows 11 you _already_ paid
> for on that new boot drive?

They can, if they decide to blacklist your product key while you are
installing. Generally, they don't do this and let you install, locking
you out of the features you paid for _post_ installation.

However, it should be noted that Windows product keys are saved to the
BIOS nowadays if you buy a pre-built machine so even if a purchased key
doesn't work, Windows will end up just using whatever it finds in the
BIOS. If it doesn't find it, there's a command to retrieve it and force
it to be used.

>> I looked at _all_ of the screenshots but you provided zero context as
>> to how you got to that result.
>
> What doesn't matter for this thread is _how_ I got to that result.
> Suffice to say that nobody on the Apple ngs can get it out of that result.
> But that doesn't matter to me because I was _testing_ what Apple would do.
> I know more than any of those iKooks as a direct result of that test.
>
> Apple _will_ force you to re-validate your login if you don't use it often.
> Apple _will_ lock you out of your own hardware if they don't like your VPN.
>
> That's just a fact that you need to know "can" (and does) happen.
> The question here is whether MS can pull the same sleazy tricks as Apple?
>
> Can they?
>
> For example:
> a. You have hardware setup #1 with boot disk #1 and Windows 11 license #1
> b. For whatever reason, Microsoft pulls the Apple sleazy lockout trick
> c. Does substituting a new boot disk #1 on hardware #1 re-engage license
> #1?

If they locked out the product key and blacklisted it, changing the boot
device won't help you in any way. If they merely locked you out because
the hardware changed post installation, you can reinstall with the same
product key and it will work.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 8:08:48 AM2/21/22

to

On 2022-02-20 23:46, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> People don't see it as a person merely trying to protect his IP
>> address from attackers
>
> The problem has _nothing_ to do with the VPN.
> The VPN was only the last straw.
> The problem started _years_ before the VPN happened.
>
> Let me try to summarize, but only because it matters if MS can do this.
>
> iPad #1 is fine:
> a. Long ago, I set up my three iPads (one bought later than the first two).
> b. On one iPad, which my wife uses, she does _everything_ Apple tells her.
> c. That iPad (one of the older ones) stays inside the walled garden always.

It obeys the government's rules so its social credit score is high.

> iPad #2 is destroyed by Apple:
> a. This was bought at the same time as was iPad #1
> b. The difference being it is _not_ imprisoned in the walled garden
> c. Apple unilaterally destroyed this iPad long ago

_How_ is it not imprisoned in the walled garden? What was done on it
that Apple found so reprehensible?

> iPad #3 is in danger:
> a. This was bought a few years _after_ the other two iPads
> b. It's in danger of being destroyed by Apple
> c. Notice Apple is constantly _forcing_ a "revalidation" step

_How_ is it in danger? What was done to it that a revalidation is necessary?

< snip >

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 8:09:59 AM2/21/22

to

Microsoft _can_ blacklist a product key. If the product key itself is
blocked, you can still install Windows, obviously, but not activate it.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 11:12:40 AM2/21/22

to

On 2022-02-21 09:23, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2022 Feb 20, rabidR04CH wrote
> (in article <%WCQJ.26103$U_B9....@fx20.iad>):
>
>> Since Windows machines, unlike Apple machines, make it fairly easy to
>> install something other than Windows,
>
> errr... a lot of Tuxers were up in arms about Secure Boot, certain that it
> was a nefarious Redmond plot to prevent the easy use of Linux. See, for
> example, https://techgenix.com/secure-boot-controversy-what-does-mean-it/

I actually believed the propaganda as well. In the end, it hasn't
affected us in any way unless you're looking to install proprietary
drivers. In those specific cases, you simply need to make sure that the
software isn't detected as being malware.

> This means that MS has, in theory, had the ability to lock non-MS OSes out of
> machines which first shipped with a MS OS since Win 8 shipped. They
> haven’t. They could. It’d be remarkably stupid of them to try, but
> Redmond’s done a lot of stupid things over the last 40 years. Personally I
> doubt that even Monkey Boy Balmer would have tried it, and Sad Nad is a _lot_
> smarter than the Monkey Boy.

If they tried it, those people looking to use Linux would build their
own hardware and turn to companies like LibreM who build products
specifically for Linux users. They can only lock devices that are
bundled with Windows.

If it can be installed directly, by loading a USB key containing the ISO
then I stand corrected again. It's quite stellar for Apple to be
allowing users to do so, to be honest.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

nospam

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 11:32:23 AM2/21/22

to

In article <ZQMQJ.67482$Tr18....@fx42.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>

wrote:

> >> Much of it has to do with the
> >> fact that Apple assumes that you are buying their hardware to use their
> >> operating system. You can use another system, but they tend to make you
> >> jump through hoops to do so.
> >
> > false. apple even provides a utility to install windows, called boot
> > camp. they also fully support linux. they don't care what os someone
> > uses.
>
> You're still jumping through hoops since you're installing Windows
> within the MacOS operating system rather than going straight to the
> BIOS, setting it up to load a USB key containing the ISO and installing
> it that way.

i'm not jumping and your knowledge of macs is severely lacking.

first of all, macs have efi, not bios.

second, windows can easily be installed and booted natively.

third, there is no need to use a usb stick, nor is that desirable.

boot camp will partition the drive, directly install windows from an
iso and automatically download and install any additional drivers that
might be needed for the mac. the entire process is both easier and
faster than installing windows on an actual windows pc. using a usb
stick is an option, it's just slower.

normally, people install windows in addition to mac os for a dual-boot
setup, but some people erase mac os entirely and use *only* windows on
their mac, including paul thurrott, formerly of winsupersite, who
prefers a macbook, stating that it's 'the best windows laptop'.

your claim that it's 'within the mac os operating system' sounds like
you are referring to virtual machines, (vmware, parallels, virtual box)
where windows (and other oses) can run as a guest from within mac os.
that's entirely different and an additional option. some people use
both a vm and dual booting, depending on their needs at the time.
vmware can even use the boot camp partition as a vm, so there's only
one windows install.

> Admittedly, Boot Camp is actually a safer approach though if you're
> trying to avoid losing data.

there's no reason any data would be lost, unless it was intentional.

nospam

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 11:32:27 AM2/21/22

to

In article <WROQJ.67790$%uX7....@fx38.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> > And, of course, it零 trivial to install Windows since XP and most Linux
> > distros, and, with some effort, BSD on a virtual machine. Just don靖 use
> > Virtual Box, VB has issues with older Wins and a lot more. It零 been my

> > experience that Parallels works well, and its cheaper than VMWare.
>
> If it can be installed directly, by loading a USB key containing the ISO
> then I stand corrected again.

even easier, windows can be installed directly from the iso, no usb
stick required.

> It's quite stellar for Apple to be
> allowing users to do so, to be honest.

they've never prohibited it.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 1:25:12 PM2/21/22

to

On 2022-02-21 11:32, nospam wrote:
> In article <ZQMQJ.67482$Tr18....@fx42.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Much of it has to do with the
>>>> fact that Apple assumes that you are buying their hardware to use their
>>>> operating system. You can use another system, but they tend to make you
>>>> jump through hoops to do so.
>>>
>>> false. apple even provides a utility to install windows, called boot
>>> camp. they also fully support linux. they don't care what os someone
>>> uses.
>>
>> You're still jumping through hoops since you're installing Windows
>> within the MacOS operating system rather than going straight to the
>> BIOS, setting it up to load a USB key containing the ISO and installing
>> it that way.
>
> i'm not jumping and your knowledge of macs is severely lacking.

Because I haven't been convinced to drink the Kool-Aid and buy one. I'm
tasked with fixing them when they inevitably fail for others and that
experience is much of the reason why I don't want to buy one for
myself... the price for what you get adds to that.

> first of all, macs have efi, not bios.

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 4:39:22 PM2/21/22

to

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>> I have to agree with nospam here.
>
> +1

And yet, the fact remains my devices are _not_ stolen.

The fact remains that the mothership algorithms suck.
They're written by what is, in effect, kindergarten coders.

You can't deny that fact since it's based on what happened.
a. They locked me out of my own device
b. And yet, it's not stolen.

You have to remember the VPN issue happened _two_ years later.
For two years the mothership has been nagging me for a re-validation.
For two years, a hundred times a day, I declined their offer.

That's when they locked me out.
That's when I tried to _unlock_ using VPN.

And then they disabled the device altoghether.
And yet, the proof their coding is kindergarten is I committed no crime.

You can't deny that fact.
Their algorithms are kindergarten.

For you to claim that those are intelligent algorithms is to defy fact.
The fact is I committed no crime and yet they locked me out of my device.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 9:14:44 PM2/21/22

to

Good question. Virtualization would be the obvious requirement this time
around.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 9:16:56 PM2/21/22

to

Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy
an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. However, I imagine that Boot Camp is
still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that would be.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 21, 2022, 9:18:01 PM2/21/22

to

Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and the
Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind of
technical user. However, I don't mind giving him the benefit of the
doubt in some respects.

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 1:37:57 AM2/22/22

to

Am 22.02.22 um 06:18 schrieb Peter:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>>> No, it raises suspicions just about anywhere. People don't see it as a
>>> person merely trying to protect his IP address from attackers; they
>>> assume that it's a thief pretending to be a specific user in order to
>>> steal their identity. They're right to do so, either way, as it helps to
>>> prevents serious financial damage.
>>
>> That is a claim by the western governments. The IP-address is not
>> relevant to prove the right to access certain accounts or data.
>
> If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple then
> they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.

You are a very simple Troll. You do not understand the concept of
IP-addresses.

Everybody should use the TOR-network or VPN.

> Why are they hiding?

That is none of your business.

> It's almost always to do bad things.
>
> Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on them.

Thank god I have and use Linux.

*ROTFLSTC* and you are out.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

nospam

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 2:30:34 AM2/22/22

to

In article <oIXQJ.14201$Icha...@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
wrote:

>
> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy
> an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway.

microsoft does not license windows on arm for apple silicon macs (aka
arm), and without official support, boot camp has no purpose.

should microsoft change that decision, then boot camp is likely to come
back, with full support from microsoft.

there are rumours it might, but until then, there's nothing apple can
do, as it's entirely out of their control.

> However, I imagine that Boot Camp is
> still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that would be.

you imagine incorrectly.

boot camp is just for windows. it carves out a partition, formats it
ntfs, installs windows, downloads additional drivers and marks it as
bootable.

linux can be installed directly. however, since mac os is based on
unix, there is little reason to do so, as just about all linux software
will run natively in mac os, nearly all of which has been ported. on
some macs, secure boot needs to be disabled, which is not a big deal.

for those who do want to use linux, spinning up a linux vm is much
easier, far more practical and also fully supported.

nospam

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 2:30:36 AM2/22/22

to

In article <rJXQJ.14202$Icha...@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
wrote:

> Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and the
> Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind of
> technical user.

oh, it's very definitely not wrong.

your animosity towards apple won't let you accept that your beliefs
might be incorrect, and not just with this either.

> However, I don't mind giving him the benefit of the
> doubt in some respects.

ok.

nospam

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 2:30:36 AM2/22/22

to

In article <9OQQJ.42752$Mpg8...@fx34.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>

wrote:

> >>>> Much of it has to do with the
> >>>> fact that Apple assumes that you are buying their hardware to use their
> >>>> operating system. You can use another system, but they tend to make you
> >>>> jump through hoops to do so.
> >>>
> >>> false. apple even provides a utility to install windows, called boot
> >>> camp. they also fully support linux. they don't care what os someone
> >>> uses.
> >>
> >> You're still jumping through hoops since you're installing Windows
> >> within the MacOS operating system rather than going straight to the
> >> BIOS, setting it up to load a USB key containing the ISO and installing
> >> it that way.
> >
> > i'm not jumping and your knowledge of macs is severely lacking.
>
> Because I haven't been convinced to drink the Kool-Aid and buy one. I'm
> tasked with fixing them when they inevitably fail for others and that
> experience is much of the reason why I don't want to buy one for
> myself... the price for what you get adds to that.

there is no kool-aid.

> > first of all, macs have efi, not bios.
>
> I say BIOS out of habit, since that's what it's been since the beginning.

many people do, but it's incorrect.

> > second, windows can easily be installed and booted natively.
>
> Good to know: I wasn't aware that they made it possible.

like i said, your knowledge about macs and apple for that matter, is
severely lacking.

installing other operating systems has always been possible.

in fact, back in the 90s, apple had its own linux distro:
<https://www.mklinux.org>
MkLinux is a project begun by the OSF Research Institute (now
Silicomp RI) and Apple Computer to port Linux, a freely distributed
UNIX-like operating system, to a variety of Power Macintosh platforms
running on top of OSF Research Institute's implementation of the Mach
microkernel.

Andy Burns

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 3:02:48 AM2/22/22

to

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> rabidR04CH wrote:
>

>> Microsoft _can_ blacklist a product key. If the product key itself is blocked,
>> you can still install Windows, obviously, but not activate it.
>
> Well, that's what I was afraid of.

Nothing in the licence agreement requires you to login with an MSA, or mentions
an MSA in relation to activation.

<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/11/Useterms_Retail_Windows_11_English.htm>

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 3:32:19 AM2/22/22

to

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> You are a very simple Troll. You do not understand the concept of
> IP-addresses.
>
> Everybody should use the TOR-network or VPN.

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 10:09:27 AM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 00:27, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't
>> buy an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. However, I imagine that Boot Camp
>> is still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that
>> would be.
>
> I believe only in facts.
>
> Your assumption, I believe is wrong (since Boot Camp doesn't _exist_ for
> the
> newer TSMC-Silicon Macs), but that assumption doesn't matter to my main
> point.
>
> My main point is the iKooks like nospam don't even know their own systems.
> As a result, their claims turn out not only to be baseless, but patently
> wrong.

Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. Intel-based
Macs most likely run Windows without issue just as he claims so I stand
corrected on that whereas the M1 ones probably don't. I don't, however,
think it's a licensing issue as much as the fact that the ARM edition of
Windows 10/11 is not meant to be used on anything other than Surface
machines. It could, technically, amount to a licensing issue though.

> Either that, or the iKooks brazenly fabricated imaginary functionality.
> Again.
>
> I don't know why the iKooks incessantly brazenly fabricate functionality
> that doesn't exist.

This is not a case of that for sure. Boot Camp does exist and it does
work, I just didn't know how well. If anything, it's quite impressive
what it manages to do considering how poorly Windows itself supports
alternative operating systems.

> I just know that they do.
> All the time.
>
> Why?
> I don't know why.
>
> I suspect either iKooks are too ignorant to know Boot Camp doesn't exist.
> Or, perhaps they know this but they think _we_ are too stupid to realize
> they lied to us.
>
> Either way - those two are the only possible assessments.
> a. They're ignorant, and/or
> b. They lied.
> You tell me why nospam made the completely baseless claims that he made.
>
> Because all I know is he defends Apple to the death, no matter what,
> even to
> the point of brazenly fabricating imaginary functionality that even Apple
> doesn't claim exists.

He definitely does defend the Mac to the death, even when it makes no
sense to do so. You have to be a serious zealot to think that a 128KB or
512KB Mac with a palette of exactly two colours, no serious sound
capabilities, no ability to multitask, a complete absence of expansion
and a tiny monitor which can't be replaced is somehow going to compete
with a computer that features a palette of 4096 colours with 32
simultaneous, 4-channel sound, expandability, the ability to be used on
a TV or a monitor of a user's choosing and pre-emptive multitasking. You
lose *ALL credibility when you make such statements.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 10:15:55 AM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 00:44, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>>> How does Boot Camp work on the latest M1 TSMC-Silicon Apple CPUs,
>>> nospam?
>>
>> Good question. Virtualization would be the obvious requirement this
>> time around.
>
> Hi rabidroach,
>
> It was a rhetorical question for nospam because I knew he was either
> completely ignorant or that he was lying to you the whole time.
>
> I am highly educated so these strange iKooks interest me because I never
> met
> anyone in the flesh like them in all my decades at Silicon Valley startups.
>
> What I've learned is that they get their self worth from Apple marketing
> cues, which means that any fact that they don't like, they _hate_, because
> it detracts from their self worth.
>
> They even gloat that Apple has earned huge amounts of money off of them,
> where the obvious fact glares out you can't make that kind of profit off of
> an intelligent user base, now can you.
>
> They deny that Apple has the lowest R&D expenditures in all of high tech,
> even as Apple doesn't deny that fact (it goes way back to Steve Jobs'
> days).
>
> They deny that the iPhone is crippled in that they fabricate endless mising
> functionality that, in the end, I believe they lie to protect their self
> image.

It should be noted that retrieving data from an iPhone is rather
difficult in comparison to an Android device. With an Android, you
merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
failure of some sort. That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one. In fact,
iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
the music you already downloaded.

> Since I've never met anyone in the flesh like them (they couldn't pass even
> a basic college class being wrong most of the time for example), I study
> them.
>
> 1. All of them, to a man, lack formal education (of this there is no doubt)
> 2. All of them, to a man, get their self worth from Apple advertising
> 3. All of them, to a man, will defend everything Apple does - to the death
>
> All that is fine because a lot of people are ignorant who fall for
> marketing
> tricks such as "Apple Silicon" (it's TSMC-Silicon) where at least Intel
> makes the chip and the silicon for "Intel Inside" even as you _never_ hear
> Windows people gloating about "Intel Inside" advertising slogans.
>
> And yet, these iKooks gloat over "TSMC-Inside" slogans from Apple?
> What on earth is so _different_ about these iKooks?
>
> I think it's simply they're ignorant.
> Which is why I asked nospam the rhetorical question about Boot Camp.
>
> I knew what he either doesn't know, or he knew, and lied.
> Either way, he was assuming _you_ were too stupid to catch it.
>
> I am not.
> Hence, they _hate_ me.
>
> And that's OK.

I don't personally mind being hated by people. In fact, I used to thrive
on it because facts mean a lot more to me than anyone's feelings.

However, I will definitely defend nospam's knowledge of the Mac. His
zealotry is annoying but he is rather educational.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 10:18:52 AM2/22/22

to

I believe it's closer to 2. He probably knows that I am mostly only
aware of Windows and Linux and therefore felt free to make some claims
without fear of being challenged. I might not be using a Mac at the
moment (this might change if my desire to play games dies) but I am
quite acquainted with the operating system in general and their history.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 10:22:16 AM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 02:30, nospam wrote:
> In article <oIXQJ.14201$Icha...@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy
>> an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway.
>
> microsoft does not license windows on arm for apple silicon macs (aka
> arm), and without official support, boot camp has no purpose.
>
> should microsoft change that decision, then boot camp is likely to come
> back, with full support from microsoft.
>
> there are rumours it might, but until then, there's nothing apple can
> do, as it's entirely out of their control.

To a degree, I imagine that Microsoft knows that if people can run
Windows on their Macs in such a convenient way, there would be no real
reason to get a Windows-based computer anymore. It is likely a strategic
move on their part.

>> However, I imagine that Boot Camp is
>> still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that would be.
>
> you imagine incorrectly.
>
> boot camp is just for windows. it carves out a partition, formats it
> ntfs, installs windows, downloads additional drivers and marks it as
> bootable.
>
> linux can be installed directly. however, since mac os is based on
> unix, there is little reason to do so, as just about all linux software
> will run natively in mac os, nearly all of which has been ported. on
> some macs, secure boot needs to be disabled, which is not a big deal.
>
> for those who do want to use linux, spinning up a linux vm is much
> easier, far more practical and also fully supported.

Good to know.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 10:25:10 AM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 02:30, nospam wrote:

> In article <rJXQJ.14202$Icha...@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and the
>> Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind of
>> technical user.
>
> oh, it's very definitely not wrong.
>
> your animosity towards apple won't let you accept that your beliefs
> might be incorrect, and not just with this either.

It's _definitely_ wrong and provably so.

People with influence who do their research before speaking state the
same thing as I do whereas you alone make the claims that you do.
Additionally, every one of your claims is designed to make Apple look
brilliant and virtuous whereas the experts treat Apple objectivity,
congratulating them for good moves and highlighting the errors.

I simply don't believe much of what you say because it is clearly
propaganda and is in direct opposition to much more credible people.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 10:29:27 AM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 02:30, nospam wrote:

> In article <9OQQJ.42752$Mpg8...@fx34.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Much of it has to do with the
>>>>>> fact that Apple assumes that you are buying their hardware to use their
>>>>>> operating system. You can use another system, but they tend to make you
>>>>>> jump through hoops to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> false. apple even provides a utility to install windows, called boot
>>>>> camp. they also fully support linux. they don't care what os someone
>>>>> uses.
>>>>
>>>> You're still jumping through hoops since you're installing Windows
>>>> within the MacOS operating system rather than going straight to the
>>>> BIOS, setting it up to load a USB key containing the ISO and installing
>>>> it that way.
>>>
>>> i'm not jumping and your knowledge of macs is severely lacking.
>>
>> Because I haven't been convinced to drink the Kool-Aid and buy one. I'm
>> tasked with fixing them when they inevitably fail for others and that
>> experience is much of the reason why I don't want to buy one for
>> myself... the price for what you get adds to that.
>
> there is no kool-aid.

Not anymore: you drank it all.

>>> first of all, macs have efi, not bios.
>>
>> I say BIOS out of habit, since that's what it's been since the beginning.
>
> many people do, but it's incorrect.

It is, but everyone who doesn't have a stick up their ass like you do
would have understood and not made a fuss.

< snip >

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 10:30:56 AM2/22/22

to

Good to know. They do, however, make it rather difficult to even install
the operating system without one.

Rene Lamontagne

In article <Hc7RJ.8935$3Pje...@fx09.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>

wrote:

> >>
> >> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy
> >> an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway.
> >
> > microsoft does not license windows on arm for apple silicon macs (aka
> > arm), and without official support, boot camp has no purpose.
> >
> > should microsoft change that decision, then boot camp is likely to come
> > back, with full support from microsoft.
> >
> > there are rumours it might, but until then, there's nothing apple can
> > do, as it's entirely out of their control.
>
> To a degree, I imagine that Microsoft knows that if people can run
> Windows on their Macs in such a convenient way, there would be no real
> reason to get a Windows-based computer anymore. It is likely a strategic
> move on their part.

again, you imagine incorrectly.

microsoft is more than happy to sell a windows license to anyone who
wants to buy one, for use on whatever computer they want, whether it's
a dell, lenovo, mac, a virtual machine, a home built system or whatever
else.

the issue is that microsoft has an exclusive with qualcomm:

<https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-microsoft-wind
ows-on-arm/>

what they do after that expires is anyone's guess.

nospam

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 12:43:40 PM2/22/22

to

In article <pf7RJ.44360$OT%7.2...@fx07.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>

wrote:

> >
> >> Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and the
> >> Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind of
> >> technical user.
> >
> > oh, it's very definitely not wrong.
> >
> > your animosity towards apple won't let you accept that your beliefs
> > might be incorrect, and not just with this either.
>
> It's _definitely_ wrong and provably so.
>
> People with influence who do their research before speaking state the
> same thing as I do whereas you alone make the claims that you do.
> Additionally, every one of your claims is designed to make Apple look
> brilliant and virtuous whereas the experts treat Apple objectivity,
> congratulating them for good moves and highlighting the errors.

just because others state something doesn't necessarily make it
correct.

there are a *lot* of myths about apple, all of which are easily
debunked.

unfortunately, some people refuse to accept anything that contradicts
their beliefs and then resort to attacks.

i know people who worked on the iigs and apple did not cripple it
because of the mac. the entire concept is crazy. crippling it would
have driven customers to competing products, the very opposite of what
is being claimed. also, the mac was more expensive and aimed at a
different demographic. the iigs wasn't a 'cheap mac'. it was a fancy
apple ii.

crippling the iigs makes for a good conspiracy theory, but it doesn't
even pass the sniff test, as is often the case with conspiracy
theories.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 1:37:31 PM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 12:43, nospam wrote:
> In article <F07RJ.84949$Gojc....@fx99.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS.
>
> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years.
> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including
> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products.

I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to
own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was
discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from
its users for one of their products earns my respect.

I still remember the Powerbook I had in 2004 very fondly and kind of
wish I had never changed it for an iMac G5. There was no real reason to
but I fell for the belief that things were going to be significantly
better on a desktop.

>> Intel-based
>> Macs most likely run Windows without issue just as he claims so I stand
>> corrected on that whereas the M1 ones probably don't. I don't, however,
>> think it's a licensing issue as much as the fact that the ARM edition of
>> Windows 10/11 is not meant to be used on anything other than Surface
>> machines. It could, technically, amount to a licensing issue though.
>
> it's a licensing issue.
>
> microsoft has an exclusive with qualcomm, which prevents them from
> licensing it to others until that expires.
>
> <https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-microsoft-wind
> ows-on-arm/>
>
> it's possible to get around that but it's considered an 'unsupported
> configuration'.
>
> there's a good chance microsoft will choose to license it for apple
> silicon macs when they can, but that is not guaranteed. they're
> certainly not saying anything one way or the other.

I guess we'll only know once that deal expires and if it is simply not
renewed. I suppose that depends on whether the Surface Pro line
utilizing the Qualcomm processors is an overwhelming success for both
companies or not.

>> He definitely does defend the Mac to the death, even when it makes no
>> sense to do so. You have to be a serious zealot to think that a 128KB or
>> 512KB Mac with a palette of exactly two colours, no serious sound
>> capabilities, no ability to multitask, a complete absence of expansion
>> and a tiny monitor which can't be replaced
>
> things were different in 1984 when the 128k mac was released. memory
> was not cheap and they were already having difficulties meeting their
> price point with 128k, let alone 512k.
>
> the sound capabilities were quite good for the time, multitasking was
> possible on a 512k, there were numerous third party expansion options
> and the entire package was intended to be portable. some of the ads
> showed people on bicycles with a mac in its carrying case, strapped to
> the bike.
>
> apple later added everything you listed as missing, including 6 nubus
> slots on the mac ii, which could also run apple's version of unix,
> known as a/ux, all in the late 1980s.
>
> <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png>
> <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg>

Meanwhile, Amiga and Atari managed to provide everything Apple was
unable to and do so at a much lower price. In Atari's case, a user paid
about $999 with colour monitor and 1MB RAM which is still $1,400 less
than a Mac with 512KB. There's no way the Mac comes out as the better
option.

>> is somehow going to compete
>> with a computer that features a palette of 4096 colours with 32
>> simultaneous, 4-channel sound, expandability, the ability to be used on
>> a TV or a monitor of a user's choosing and pre-emptive multitasking. You
>> lose *ALL credibility when you make such statements.
>
> as you say, you lose all credibility when you make such statements.
>
> not only did the mac compete, but it won, at least against the amiga
> and atari. it managed to survive against windows, despite major
> obstacles.

Mac won because Atari and Commodore later ended up fighting one another
on price rather than trying to upgrade their machines in the hope of
competing with the PC and the Mac. I'm talking about 1985 where it was
clear that the Mac was the worst of the four options and you _know_ that
I am.

> there was a *lot* of software and hardware for the mac, and almost
> nothing for amiga and atari.

That is true for software, at the very least. In the case of the Atari,
rampant piracy discouraged companies from bothering to produce software
for it and I don't blame them. Amiga had tons of software, but most of
it was games which is what the Amiga ended up becoming as a result of
its stellar hardware. Unfortunately, few saw the machine's potential as
a workstation.

> you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with
> a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you
> use it.

Raw specs are one thing but those two machines could also do a lot more
than the Mac could for the very reasons you cite: lack of hardware and
software. It should be noted that Atari and Amiga fared incredibly well
in Europe and a load of software was made available for both platforms
within the continent but a lot of it, particularly games, never made it
to North America.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 1:39:36 PM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 12:43, nospam wrote:

> In article <K67RJ.72876$iK66....@fx46.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It should be noted that retrieving data from an iPhone is rather
>> difficult in comparison to an Android device.
>
> it's only difficult for those without the passcode, which is a feature.
>
> for legitimate owners, who *do* have their passcode, it's very easy to
> transfer content to and from an ios device, in any of a variety of
> ways.

Please share them.

>> With an Android, you
>> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
>> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
>> failure of some sort.
>
> that is false.

Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
additional software, for someone who would want to do so.

>> That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
>> I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
>> decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one.
>
> there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
> store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
> library.

Not anymore.

> only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
> has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
> would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
> and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.
>
> for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
> whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
> pirate it. apple doesn't care.

Not anymore. They only stopped once it became clear that the competition
was providing a better quality version of the song for the same price
and without DRM.

>> In fact,
>> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
>> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
>> the music you already downloaded.
>
> that too is false.
>
> apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
> determine that anyway.

Like I said, not anymore.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 1:53:52 PM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 12:43, nospam wrote:

In other words, don't believe the experts and listen to nospam. I'm
sorry but I call bullshit on everything you just said.

nospam

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 3:01:16 PM2/22/22

to

In article <H5aRJ.79664$H_t7....@fx40.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>

wrote:

> >> It should be noted that retrieving data from an iPhone is rather
> >> difficult in comparison to an Android device.
> >
> > it's only difficult for those without the passcode, which is a feature.
> >
> > for legitimate owners, who *do* have their passcode, it's very easy to
> > transfer content to and from an ios device, in any of a variety of
> > ways.
>
> Please share them.

for photos, the phone shows up as a digital camera, so anything that
works with any digital camera will work, including windows explorer
(although oddly, not mac finder) and adobe lightroom.

other content generally requires an app to copy content, via whatever
protocol the user wants, including ftp, sftp, smb, http. the phone can
be connected via usb or wifi, as per the user's choice.

airdrop is another option for mac users (or between ios devices), which
does not require any additional software.

there might be more but that's what comes to mind right now.

> >> With an Android, you
> >> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
> >> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
> >> failure of some sort.
> >
> > that is false.
>
> Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
> additional software, for someone who would want to do so.

itunes doesn't block anything. it's not even part of the process.

there are many apps to copy music off an iphone or ipod. some work
well, but quite a few are scamware.

one of the more popular apps is <https://imazing.com>.

also, there should never be only one copy of anything. if the phone is
lost or stolen, you won't have it to copy the music or anything else.
if you have copies elsewhere, then there's no need to copy it off the
phone. it's in the cloud and/or on a local hard drive/ssd.

> >> That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
> >> I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
> >> decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one.
> >
> > there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
> > store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
> > library.
>
> Not anymore.

>>>> With an Android, you
>>>> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
>>>> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
>>>> failure of some sort.
>>>
>>> that is false.
>>
>> Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
>> additional software, for someone who would want to do so.
>
> itunes doesn't block anything. it's not even part of the process.
>
> there are many apps to copy music off an iphone or ipod. some work
> well, but quite a few are scamware.
>
> one of the more popular apps is <https://imazing.com>.
>
> also, there should never be only one copy of anything. if the phone is
> lost or stolen, you won't have it to copy the music or anything else.
> if you have copies elsewhere, then there's no need to copy it off the
> phone. it's in the cloud and/or on a local hard drive/ssd.

MusicBee, which is quite stellar free software, was incapable of syncing
to my iPhone 13 despite having no trouble with a Windows Phone, an
Android and even a simple MicroSD card. It kept complaining that a music
folder was missing. Any attempt to actually get onto the iPhone and
create the folder failed because it locks you out by default, even after
you enter your password to unlock the device. I'm open to the idea that
there is something I forgot to do but it's clearly not as
straightforward as any of the aforementioned devices.

>>>> That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
>>>> I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
>>>> decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one.
>>>
>>> there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
>>> store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
>>> library.
>>
>> Not anymore.
>
> when the itunes music store was launched, the record companies
> *required* apple to have drm because they were incredibly paranoid that
> people would pirate music if it was so easy to download it. apple
> didn't want drm, but had to do it.
>
> as it turned out, the rampant piracy the record companies feared did
> not happen.
>
> they realized that online music sales was actually a good thing, at
> which point, they let apple (and others) remove drm.
>
> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/apples-jobs-calls-for-drm-
> free-music/>
> In a rare open letter from CEO Steve Jobs on Tuesday, Apple urged
> record companies to abandon digital rights management technologies.
>
> The letter, posted on Apple's Web site and titled "Thoughts on
> Music," is a long examination of Apple's iTunes and what the future
> may hold for the online distribution of copy-protected music. In the
> letter, Jobs says Apple was forced to create a DRM system to get the
> world's four largest record companies on board with the iTunes Store.

The clarification is welcome but it doesn't change the fact that the
"not anymore" is accurate.

>>> only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
>>> has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
>>> would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
>>> and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.
>>>
>>> for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
>>> whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
>>> pirate it. apple doesn't care.
>>
>> Not anymore. They only stopped once it became clear that the competition
>> was providing a better quality version of the song for the same price
>> and without DRM.
>
> nope. that's not what happened.
>
> as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
> forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
> once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
> they relaxed those requirements.

From what I just now read, it seems that you are correct in stating
that it was the music companies themselves which insisted on it and not
Apple. I falsely recalled that some competitors offered music without
DRM but it turns out that they had it as well.

>>>> In fact,
>>>> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
>>>> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
>>>> the music you already downloaded.
>>>
>>> that too is false.
>>>
>>> apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
>>> determine that anyway.
>>
>> Like I said, not anymore.
>
> it's always been the case.
>
> it's not possible for apple (or anyone else for that matter) to tell if
> music is pirated or encoded by the user.
>
> in fact, apple even offers amnesty for pirates.
>
> itunes match will match songs in a user's library with what's available
> in apple's library to make them available in the cloud. the user can
> also download a no-drm 256kb aac version if they want. the original
> source does not matter at all.
>
> that means someone with pirated music can convert it to legitimate
> copies without any drm and come clean, and in many cases, with higher
> quality versions than the pirated versions.
>
> the original copies can be kept if desired.

With a subscription to Apple Music, if I am correct.

However, I am curious here. Let's say I have a few dozen songs in my
library which are 96kbps MP3 but I have an Apple Music subscription.
While I have the subscription, it's clear that I can listen to the
entire library and that it will have quality on par with a 256kbps AAC.
However, can I actually download this higher quality version while I am
an Apple Music member and hold onto it even after I cancel or is it only
available to me in the cloud, not downloadable and lost if I cancel?

By the way, I enjoy your clarifications. I actually look forward to the
posts as a potential owner of a MacBook as my next portable.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 4:31:29 PM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 3:01 p.m., nospam wrote:

How is what you're doing any different?

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 4:44:47 PM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 3:01 p.m., nospam wrote:

I have no doubt that it was ahead of its time and probably much better
than a Palm but I wonder whether there was a market for such a device at
the time. If not, would there have been one if the device were smaller?

>> I still remember the Powerbook I had in 2004 very fondly and kind of
>> wish I had never changed it for an iMac G5. There was no real reason to
>> but I fell for the belief that things were going to be significantly
>> better on a desktop.
>
> sometimes they're not.
>
> which powerbook was it? the powerbook 12" still has a following to this
> day.

It was a G4 1GHz with 1GB of RAM if I remember correctly. The keyboard
was nice, I couldn't complain about the battery life and the screen was
crisp. I loved not having a tray onto which to put my optical media as
well.

>>> <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png>
>>> <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg>
>>
>> Meanwhile, Amiga and Atari managed to provide everything Apple was
>> unable to and do so at a much lower price. In Atari's case, a user paid
>> about $999 with colour monitor and 1MB RAM which is still $1,400 less
>> than a Mac with 512KB. There's no way the Mac comes out as the better
>> option.
>
> you're focused only on hardware. the mac had a *lot* of software and a
> far more polished interface, which meant it was generally a better
> choice.
>
> as i said, the mac survived the 90s and 00s, when windows was dominant.
>
> amiga and atari did not.

For the interface, I can't say that Mac OS wasn't polished. AmigaOS was
clearly capable of more but fairly daunting to a first time user and
you're right to say that it wasn't all too stable at first... even the
Amiga users themselves will laugh at the "Guru Medication" error they
often received. Atari's TOS was better but it felt like an incomplete
Mac OS. There were few options to say the least. However, it should be
pointed out that AmigaOS became much better as of the second release and
that much of the instability was due to the Amiga 1000 being rushed to
market.

>>> you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with
>>> a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you
>>> use it.
>>
>> Raw specs are one thing but those two machines could also do a lot more
>> than the Mac could for the very reasons you cite: lack of hardware and
>> software. It should be noted that Atari and Amiga fared incredibly well
>> in Europe and a load of software was made available for both platforms
>> within the continent but a lot of it, particularly games, never made it
>> to North America.
>
> what they did was not enough.
>
> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
> that atari and amiga did not have.
>
> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
> much amiga or atari.

As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
even produce colour.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

nospam

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 7:36:32 PM2/22/22

to

In article <qCcRJ.85783$f2a5....@fx48.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
wrote:

>
> >>>> With an Android, you
> >>>> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
> >>>> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
> >>>> failure of some sort.
> >>>
> >>> that is false.
> >>
> >> Explain _why_ it is false and provide a remedy, which doesn't require
> >> additional software, for someone who would want to do so.
> >
> > itunes doesn't block anything. it's not even part of the process.
> >
> > there are many apps to copy music off an iphone or ipod. some work
> > well, but quite a few are scamware.
> >
> > one of the more popular apps is <https://imazing.com>.
> >
> > also, there should never be only one copy of anything. if the phone is
> > lost or stolen, you won't have it to copy the music or anything else.
> > if you have copies elsewhere, then there's no need to copy it off the
> > phone. it's in the cloud and/or on a local hard drive/ssd.
>
> MusicBee, which is quite stellar free software, was incapable of syncing
> to my iPhone 13 despite having no trouble with a Windows Phone, an
> Android and even a simple MicroSD card. It kept complaining that a music
> folder was missing. Any attempt to actually get onto the iPhone and
> create the folder failed because it locks you out by default, even after
> you enter your password to unlock the device. I'm open to the idea that
> there is something I forgot to do but it's clearly not as
> straightforward as any of the aforementioned devices.

i dunno what you did or didn't do, nor have i used musicbee, but i
don't see anything about it that indicates they support ios devices.

check out some of the other options, including imazing, which has both
a mac and windows version.

>
> >>>
> >>> there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
> >>> store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
> >>> library.
> >>
> >> Not anymore.
> >
> > when the itunes music store was launched, the record companies
> > *required* apple to have drm because they were incredibly paranoid that
> > people would pirate music if it was so easy to download it. apple
> > didn't want drm, but had to do it.
> >
> > as it turned out, the rampant piracy the record companies feared did
> > not happen.
> >
> > they realized that online music sales was actually a good thing, at
> > which point, they let apple (and others) remove drm.
> >
> > <https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/apples-jobs-calls-for-drm-
> > free-music/>
> > In a rare open letter from CEO Steve Jobs on Tuesday, Apple urged
> > record companies to abandon digital rights management technologies.
> >
> > The letter, posted on Apple's Web site and titled "Thoughts on
> > Music," is a long examination of Apple's iTunes and what the future
> > may hold for the online distribution of copy-protected music. In the
> > letter, Jobs says Apple was forced to create a DRM system to get the
> > world's four largest record companies on board with the iTunes Store.
>
> The clarification is welcome but it doesn't change the fact that the
> "not anymore" is accurate.

it's technically correct, but misleading.

drm has been gone for nearly 15 years. it's a distant memory.

> >>> only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
> >>> has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
> >>> would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
> >>> and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.
> >>>
> >>> for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
> >>> whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
> >>> pirate it. apple doesn't care.
> >>
> >> Not anymore. They only stopped once it became clear that the competition
> >> was providing a better quality version of the song for the same price
> >> and without DRM.
> >
> > nope. that's not what happened.
> >
> > as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
> > forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
> > once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
> > they relaxed those requirements.
>
> From what I just now read, it seems that you are correct in stating
> that it was the music companies themselves which insisted on it and not
> Apple. I falsely recalled that some competitors offered music without
> DRM but it turns out that they had it as well.

your recollection is correct. amazon did offer drm-free music slightly
before apple did, but that's only because apple had existing contracts
in place that required drm, whereas amazon could negotiate new ones
without it, because at that time, the record industry was more amenable
to no drm than when they contracted with apple. once apple's contracts
expired, apple was no longer bound to use drm and it went away.

> >>>> In fact,
> >>>> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
> >>>> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
> >>>> the music you already downloaded.
> >>>
> >>> that too is false.
> >>>
> >>> apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
> >>> determine that anyway.
> >>
> >> Like I said, not anymore.
> >
> > it's always been the case.
> >
> > it's not possible for apple (or anyone else for that matter) to tell if
> > music is pirated or encoded by the user.
> >
> > in fact, apple even offers amnesty for pirates.
> >
> > itunes match will match songs in a user's library with what's available
> > in apple's library to make them available in the cloud. the user can
> > also download a no-drm 256kb aac version if they want. the original
> > source does not matter at all.
> >
> > that means someone with pirated music can convert it to legitimate
> > copies without any drm and come clean, and in many cases, with higher
> > quality versions than the pirated versions.
> >
> > the original copies can be kept if desired.
>
> With a subscription to Apple Music, if I am correct.

you are not correct.

i am referring to itunes match, which is a different and somewhat
forgotten service.

> However, I am curious here. Let's say I have a few dozen songs in my
> library which are 96kbps MP3 but I have an Apple Music subscription.
> While I have the subscription, it's clear that I can listen to the
> entire library and that it will have quality on par with a 256kbps AAC.
> However, can I actually download this higher quality version while I am
> an Apple Music member and hold onto it even after I cancel or is it only
> available to me in the cloud, not downloadable and lost if I cancel?

apple music will not help you for the situation you describe.

itunes match will.

apple music is a streaming service, where you have access to the entire
apple catalog, and as with other streaming services, you are paying for
access, not ownership. if you cancel, your access ends, your ability to
stream ceases and any music you downloaded can't be played anymore, at
least not until you resubscribe. it's a cheap way to have access to a
huge library of music that otherwise would have cost a lot to purchase,
but you do not own any of it.

itunes match, which predates apple music, is designed to give you cloud
access for music you already have. you do not get access to what you
don't already own.

it will scan your library and everything that matches is considered to
be purchased, with the assumption that you own it (but there's no way
to check, so pirated music counts), at which point, you can stream it
from apple's catalog and/or download a new copy to replace your
existing version (and keep both if you want).

any remaining songs that do not match will be uploaded for cloud
access, but there obviously won't be a new version to download since it
didn't match anything in apple's catalog. you'll be streaming your own
copy.

that greatly reduces the amount of data to transfer and store on their
servers.

if you do cancel itunes match, you will lose cloud access, but whatever
songs you've already downloaded are yours to keep, just as if you
bought them outright, and without any drm.

so to answer your question, if your goal is to upgrade the quality of
some songs you already have, it's $25 to sign up for itunes match, let
it match your existing library, download the new versions (256kb aac)
and cancel at some point within the first year (unless you want to keep
it longer).

one caveat is that matching is not always perfect. if a song has more
than one version (e.g., live & studio), it might get it wrong, which is
a good reason to keep the originals.

> By the way, I enjoy your clarifications. I actually look forward to the
> posts as a potential owner of a MacBook as my next portable.

thanks.

buy whatever best fits your needs. my only concern is that people make
an informed decision that's based on facts, not myths.

nospam

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 7:36:34 PM2/22/22

to

In article <gPcRJ.92504$i65a....@fx16.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>

wrote:

> >
> >>>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
> >>>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS.
> >>>
> >>> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years.
> >>> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including
> >>> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products.
> >>
> >> I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to
> >> own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was
> >> discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from
> >> its users for one of their products earns my respect.
> >
> > the newton was *well* ahead of its time.
> >

...

> I have no doubt that it was ahead of its time and probably much better
> than a Palm but I wonder whether there was a market for such a device at
> the time. If not, would there have been one if the device were smaller?

it did sell, but not as much as the palm pilot.

the design goal was for it to be about the size of a paper day planner,
which is what people used to carry back in the prehistoric times.

its size was a reasonable choice at the time, especially for something
on which people would be writing, but as it turned out, that was a
mistake. people wanted something smaller and didn't mind using palm's
graffiti for the tradeoff.

it also used ordinary aa batteries and a coin battery for backup:
<https://d1rytvr7gmk1sx.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/DSC_01
73.jpg>

the newton was also the first apple product to use arm chips, which
apple partly owned and later sold, only to later re-license it for ios
devices.

there was even a web browser, called newtscape.

but despite all of that, a lesser product won out.

specs ain't everything.

> >
> > the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
> > apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
> > that atari and amiga did not have.
> >
> > companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
> > much amiga or atari.
>
> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
> even produce colour.

true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter.

the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time,
was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe
postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer.

create a document on the mac, proof it on a laserwriter, and then send
it to an offset printer for final copy.

microsoft word and multiplan were available on the mac in 1984, with
excel following in 1985, which was mac only for a few years.

<https://winworldpc.com/res/img/screenshots/Microsoft%20Excel%201.5%20-%
20About.png>

aldus pagemaker was also in 1985, also mac only initially.

people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for
windows.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 9:05:56 PM2/22/22

to

I've already transferred all of my music to the iPhone anyway and
decided that I would be purchasing my music from iTunes from now on so
there's no longer a point. I just found it annoying that it wouldn't
sync the way the previous devices did.

Except in movies, TV shows and games purchased online everywhere except GOG.

What I _do_ recall is that in addition to cancelling DRM, Apple also
improved the quality of the music. If I remember correctly, they started
out selling their music as 128kbps, DRMed and ended up with 256kbps and
without. I will be the first to say that 256kbps AAC encoded with
Apple's version of the codec is the best sound that you will get short
of lossless, especially if the music is sold as an "Apple Digital
Master." Vorbis is close though.

>>>>>> In fact,
>>>>>> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
>>>>>> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
>>>>>> the music you already downloaded.
>>>>>
>>>>> that too is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
>>>>> determine that anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, not anymore.
>>>
>>> it's always been the case.
>>>
>>> it's not possible for apple (or anyone else for that matter) to tell if
>>> music is pirated or encoded by the user.
>>>
>>> in fact, apple even offers amnesty for pirates.
>>>
>>> itunes match will match songs in a user's library with what's available
>>> in apple's library to make them available in the cloud. the user can
>>> also download a no-drm 256kb aac version if they want. the original
>>> source does not matter at all.
>>>
>>> that means someone with pirated music can convert it to legitimate
>>> copies without any drm and come clean, and in many cases, with higher
>>> quality versions than the pirated versions.
>>>
>>> the original copies can be kept if desired.
>>
>> With a subscription to Apple Music, if I am correct.
>
> you are not correct.
>
> i am referring to itunes match, which is a different and somewhat
> forgotten service.

I'll have to look into it. All of my music is encoded as Vorbis 320kbps
if ripped from a CD (and since converted to AAC at the same bitrate) and
the rest is either MP3 320kbps or 256kbps AAC purchased from iTunes so
there's really nothing to be concerned with. I was afraid the conversion
would ruin the music and it should have but it doesn't seem to have done
anything at all to the sound.

I'll have to look into that. It sounds like a brilliant service for
people such as myself who will actually hear the difference between a
128kbps and 320kbps music file.

>> By the way, I enjoy your clarifications. I actually look forward to the
>> posts as a potential owner of a MacBook as my next portable.
>
> thanks.
>
> buy whatever best fits your needs. my only concern is that people make
> an informed decision that's based on facts, not myths.

Well, if people take the time to consider what you're saying, it
definitely comes from a good place. The delivery is not as smooth as
most of the people here would want but I guess I'm not as sensitive as
most.

To be honest, I was going to buy a MacBook Pro a few months ago when it
was finally time to replace my aging gaming machine. The only reason I
chose the one I have now is because I never thought it was possible to
make a gaming laptop that's more or less the size of a MacBook Air. I
regretted it at first when I got serious wireless issues, but
everything's been resolved since. Were gaming not a consideration, I
don't think I would have selected it.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 22, 2022, 9:14:39 PM2/22/22

to

On 2022-02-22 7:36 p.m., nospam wrote:

I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not
going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild
have since bitten the dust.

>>> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
>>> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
>>> that atari and amiga did not have.
>>>
>>> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
>>> much amiga or atari.
>>
>> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
>> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
>> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
>> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
>> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
>> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
>> even produce colour.
>
> true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter.
>
> the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time,
> was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe
> postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer.

Ah, yes. I nearly forgot about that! Apple was the first to release a
laser printer and THAT was definitely a game changer. I believe that
Atari eventually made one but it didn't have the same kind of impact
mostly because it didn't have the publishing software to seriously
challenge what was already established on the Mac side.

I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around
2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his
computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use
Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which
definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to
give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy
laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac
at home.

It still worked but, admittedly, there was no real use for such a
machine in 2002.

> create a document on the mac, proof it on a laserwriter, and then send
> it to an offset printer for final copy.
>
> microsoft word and multiplan were available on the mac in 1984, with
> excel following in 1985, which was mac only for a few years.
>
> <https://winworldpc.com/res/img/screenshots/Microsoft%20Excel%201.5%20-%
> 20About.png>
>
> aldus pagemaker was also in 1985, also mac only initially.
>
> people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for
> windows.

If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy
one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer. It's a shock that
the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system.

nospam

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 7:58:36 AM2/23/22

to

In article <6EgRJ.107157$SeK9...@fx97.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
wrote:

> > drm has been gone for nearly 15 years. it's a distant memory.
>
> Except in movies, TV shows and games purchased online everywhere except GOG.

the tv/movie industry still requires drm.

it mostly annoys the honest people, since those who want to pirate are
going to pirate and don't care what the online services do.

> >>> as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
> >>> forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
> >>> once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
> >>> they relaxed those requirements.
> >>
> >> From what I just now read, it seems that you are correct in stating
> >> that it was the music companies themselves which insisted on it and not
> >> Apple. I falsely recalled that some competitors offered music without
> >> DRM but it turns out that they had it as well.
> >
> > your recollection is correct. amazon did offer drm-free music slightly
> > before apple did, but that's only because apple had existing contracts
> > in place that required drm, whereas amazon could negotiate new ones
> > without it, because at that time, the record industry was more amenable
> > to no drm than when they contracted with apple. once apple's contracts
> > expired, apple was no longer bound to use drm and it went away.
>
> What I _do_ recall is that in addition to cancelling DRM, Apple also
> improved the quality of the music. If I remember correctly, they started
> out selling their music as 128kbps, DRMed and ended up with 256kbps and
> without.

you remember correctly.

> I will be the first to say that 256kbps AAC encoded with
> Apple's version of the codec is the best sound that you will get short
> of lossless, especially if the music is sold as an "Apple Digital
> Master." Vorbis is close though.

countless objective double-blind tests show that people do no better
than chance when comparing high quality mp3/aac and the original.

> > i am referring to itunes match, which is a different and somewhat
> > forgotten service.
>
> I'll have to look into it. All of my music is encoded as Vorbis 320kbps
> if ripped from a CD (and since converted to AAC at the same bitrate) and
> the rest is either MP3 320kbps or 256kbps AAC purchased from iTunes so
> there's really nothing to be concerned with. I was afraid the conversion
> would ruin the music and it should have but it doesn't seem to have done
> anything at all to the sound.

i suspect it won't work with vorbis, so you would probably need to
transcode to mp3 or aac, which would only be needed for matching. there
was a plugin for vorbis in itunes but it looks like it's long dead.

> >> However, I am curious here. Let's say I have a few dozen songs in my
> >> library which are 96kbps MP3 but I have an Apple Music subscription.
> >> While I have the subscription, it's clear that I can listen to the
> >> entire library and that it will have quality on par with a 256kbps AAC.
> >> However, can I actually download this higher quality version while I am
> >> an Apple Music member and hold onto it even after I cancel or is it only
> >> available to me in the cloud, not downloadable and lost if I cancel?

...

> > so to answer your question, if your goal is to upgrade the quality of
> > some songs you already have, it's $25 to sign up for itunes match, let
> > it match your existing library, download the new versions (256kb aac)
> > and cancel at some point within the first year (unless you want to keep
> > it longer).
> >
> > one caveat is that matching is not always perfect. if a song has more
> > than one version (e.g., live & studio), it might get it wrong, which is
> > a good reason to keep the originals.
>
> I'll have to look into that. It sounds like a brilliant service for
> people such as myself who will actually hear the difference between a
> 128kbps and 320kbps music file.

the minimum is 96 kbps and it's a free upgrade, even without the piracy
amnesty.

i have heard that lower bit rates transcoded to 96k or higher can work
but i don't know how reliable that is.

> >> By the way, I enjoy your clarifications. I actually look forward to the
> >> posts as a potential owner of a MacBook as my next portable.
> >
> > thanks.
> >
> > buy whatever best fits your needs. my only concern is that people make
> > an informed decision that's based on facts, not myths.
>
> Well, if people take the time to consider what you're saying, it
> definitely comes from a good place. The delivery is not as smooth as
> most of the people here would want but I guess I'm not as sensitive as
> most.

i tend to be blunt.

> To be honest, I was going to buy a MacBook Pro a few months ago when it
> was finally time to replace my aging gaming machine. The only reason I
> chose the one I have now is because I never thought it was possible to
> make a gaming laptop that's more or less the size of a MacBook Air. I
> regretted it at first when I got serious wireless issues, but
> everything's been resolved since. Were gaming not a consideration, I
> don't think I would have selected it.

what you have is a good choice for gaming.

different people have different priorities.

nospam

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 7:58:38 AM2/23/22

to

In article <hMgRJ.24049$jxu4...@fx02.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
wrote:

>
> I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not
> going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild
> have since bitten the dust.

there are some on ebay, and for more than i thought they'd be.

there is also a rather dumb date bug:
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/06/impending-newton-y2k10-apocalyp
se-narrowly-averted/>
The problem for the Newton, however, is that the date was encoded
using only 30 bits instead of a full 32 bits, meaning that disaster
would strike when the clock struck 6:48:31pm on January 5, 2010.
Naturally, Newton aficionados were ruing the day they might be forced
to buy a portable device produced within the last decade.
...
However, indomitable Newton hacker Eckhart K?ppen developed a
patch for the Newton OS which changes the time base used to calculate
the real time to make sure the resulting value always falls in a safe
range. The patch currently works on the US version of the MessagePad
2100 running Newton OS 2.1.

on the other hand, macs don't have that issue.

> >>> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
> >>> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
> >>> that atari and amiga did not have.
> >>>
> >>> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
> >>> much amiga or atari.
> >>
> >> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
> >> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
> >> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
> >> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
> >> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
> >> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
> >> even produce colour.
> >
> > true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter.
> >
> > the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time,
> > was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe
> > postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer.
>
> Ah, yes. I nearly forgot about that! Apple was the first to release a
> laser printer and THAT was definitely a game changer. I believe that
> Atari eventually made one but it didn't have the same kind of impact
> mostly because it didn't have the publishing software to seriously
> challenge what was already established on the Mac side.

yep.

another feature of the original mac were two high speed serial ports
capable of up to 1 mbit/sec, which also supported inexpensive appletalk
networking. nothing else at the time could do that. appletalk networks
were very common, especially with phonenet, which used ordinary phone
cord.

> I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around
> 2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his
> computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use
> Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which
> definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to
> give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy
> laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac
> at home.

the original laserwriter weighed nearly 80 lbs and supported both
appletalk and serial with postscript and also diablo emulation. later
ones were nowhere near as heavy.

> > people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for
> > windows.
>
> If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy
> one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer.

it was a work in progress. it wasn't until win 3.x or win95 until it
was practical to use instead of dos.

early versions of mac os x were also a work in progress. it wasn't
until about 10.2 or 10.3 when mac os x was a viable replacement for
classic mac os.

sometimes you have to ship *something*.

> It's a shock that
> the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system.

apple sued microsoft, but it was dismissed on a technicality.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 8:53:59 AM2/23/22

to

On 2022-02-23 07:58, nospam wrote:
> In article <6EgRJ.107157$SeK9...@fx97.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>> drm has been gone for nearly 15 years. it's a distant memory.
>>
>> Except in movies, TV shows and games purchased online everywhere except GOG.
>
> the tv/movie industry still requires drm.
>
> it mostly annoys the honest people, since those who want to pirate are
> going to pirate and don't care what the online services do.

It mostly annoys me because I routinely buy movies I'd like to watch
with my students but can't because the Internet connection at work is
garbage so I can't stream them. I CAN, however, download them into cache
first before playing them which is the only decent solution. A complete
lack of DRM would have been preferable though.

I can notice the difference in my car where there are a dozen or so
speakers. There, a FLAC is going to sound a lot better than an AAC or an
MP3. However, on all but the best stereo headset, chances are that
nobody will notice the difference with Vorbis, AAC and FLAC. However,
they might notice with an MP3 whenever there is a mix of instruments
playing simultaneously at a certain loudness. With MP3, they tend to
create artifacts that are not present in AAC or Vorbis and especially
not lossless.

>>> i am referring to itunes match, which is a different and somewhat
>>> forgotten service.
>>
>> I'll have to look into it. All of my music is encoded as Vorbis 320kbps
>> if ripped from a CD (and since converted to AAC at the same bitrate) and
>> the rest is either MP3 320kbps or 256kbps AAC purchased from iTunes so
>> there's really nothing to be concerned with. I was afraid the conversion
>> would ruin the music and it should have but it doesn't seem to have done
>> anything at all to the sound.
>
> i suspect it won't work with vorbis, so you would probably need to
> transcode to mp3 or aac, which would only be needed for matching. there
> was a plugin for vorbis in itunes but it looks like it's long dead.

Well, considering the Vorbis were at 320kbps to begin with, chances are
that they didn't lose much if any data. Therefore, a top quality Vorbis
converted to a top-quality AAC was not likely to worsen. I actually
tested a few songs before doing it on a grander scale and I could not
hear a single difference.

< snip >

>>>> By the way, I enjoy your clarifications. I actually look forward to the
>>>> posts as a potential owner of a MacBook as my next portable.
>>>
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> buy whatever best fits your needs. my only concern is that people make
>>> an informed decision that's based on facts, not myths.
>>
>> Well, if people take the time to consider what you're saying, it
>> definitely comes from a good place. The delivery is not as smooth as
>> most of the people here would want but I guess I'm not as sensitive as
>> most.
>
> i tend to be blunt.

Same here, but I know it causes people to lose interest in talking to
me. I don't mind it because I don't want to be friends with
hypersensitive people anyway.

< snip >

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 9:01:08 AM2/23/22

to

On 2022-02-23 07:58, nospam wrote:

> In article <hMgRJ.24049$jxu4...@fx02.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not
>> going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild
>> have since bitten the dust.
>
> there are some on ebay, and for more than i thought they'd be.
>
> there is also a rather dumb date bug:
> <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/06/impending-newton-y2k10-apocalyp
> se-narrowly-averted/>
> The problem for the Newton, however, is that the date was encoded
> using only 30 bits instead of a full 32 bits, meaning that disaster
> would strike when the clock struck 6:48:31pm on January 5, 2010.
> Naturally, Newton aficionados were ruing the day they might be forced
> to buy a portable device produced within the last decade.
> ...
> However, indomitable Newton hacker Eckhart K?ppen developed a
> patch for the Newton OS which changes the time base used to calculate
> the real time to make sure the resulting value always falls in a safe
> range. The patch currently works on the US version of the MessagePad
> 2100 running Newton OS 2.1.
>
> on the other hand, macs don't have that issue.

I would have been surprised if they did. I don't recall how well Macs
averted the Y2K "disaster" though. At the time, the interest in Macs on
my side or that of my buddies was very minimal.

That might haven been a reason why people chose them rather than the
competition for workstations. If you don't know _about_ networking,
you're not likely to care but once you see how easy it is to transfer
data from one place to another (rather than disks), you're probably
going to be willing to pay top dollar to have it... no matter how slow
it might seem to be.

>> I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around
>> 2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his
>> computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use
>> Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which
>> definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to
>> give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy
>> laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac
>> at home.
>
> the original laserwriter weighed nearly 80 lbs and supported both
> appletalk and serial with postscript and also diablo emulation. later
> ones were nowhere near as heavy.

This one was an absolute beast. I never got to use it since I really
only wanted the computer itself but I recall struggling to bring that
thing back home from down the street. I wasn't working out at the time. :)

>>> people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for
>>> windows.
>>
>> If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy
>> one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer.
>
> it was a work in progress. it wasn't until win 3.x or win95 until it
> was practical to use instead of dos.
>
> early versions of mac os x were also a work in progress. it wasn't
> until about 10.2 or 10.3 when mac os x was a viable replacement for
> classic mac os.
>
> sometimes you have to ship *something*.

10.x and 10.1x were at least pretty. Admittedly though, Mac OS 9.2.2
seemed to be a lot more useful. I don't recall MacOS X being fast until
10.15.

>> It's a shock that
>> the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system.
>
> apple sued microsoft, but it was dismissed on a technicality.

I thought Apple had won but its victory limited to releases of Windows 1.x.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3

Mayayana

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 9:04:31 AM2/23/22

to

"Peter" <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote

| If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
then
| they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
|
| Why are they hiding?
| It's almost always to do bad things.
|

Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
own dictatorial government. Or it might be me just using
a different computer in a different location. Or they might
be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
likes of Apple and Microsoft. Or maybe they're Ukrainian
resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.

There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew

He says that if you have something to hide you probably
shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
of his promiscuous lifestyle.

| Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on
them.

I think the question here is about authority. If I want
a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
they can provide that service. When they start imposing
it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."

nospam

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 9:27:21 AM2/23/22

to

In article <C6rRJ.48974$Y1A7...@fx43.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> I don't recall how well Macs
> averted the Y2K "disaster" though. At the time, the interest in Macs on
> my side or that of my buddies was very minimal.

classic mac os, which is what existed then, was ok until 2040. mac os
x, released a year later and being based on unix, had the well known
2038 limit, which was resolved long ago with mac os x 10.6 and 64 bit
time offsets. the current version of macos is good thru 2554.

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 11:24:43 AM2/23/22

to

On 2022-02-23 9:04 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "Peter" <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote
>
> | If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
> then
> | they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
> |
> | Why are they hiding?
> | It's almost always to do bad things.
> |
>
> Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
> own dictatorial government. Or it might be me just using
> a different computer in a different location. Or they might
> be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
> likes of Apple and Microsoft. Or maybe they're Ukrainian
> resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
> their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
> damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.
>
> There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew
>
> He says that if you have something to hide you probably
> shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
> of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
> women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
> privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
> condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
> of his promiscuous lifestyle.

I like the way you think and agree. Users of an operating should have
the right to use it from wherever, whenever and feel free to connect to
a VPN which, at the very least, encrypts the data so that the ISP itself
cannot monitor them to the advantage of an oppressive government.

> | Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on
> them.
>
> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."

It's called voting for leftist political parties.

--
rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 11:26:02 AM2/23/22

to

Let's just hope that nobody is still using Big Sur in 2554.

--
rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 12:13:53 PM2/23/22

to

On 2022-02-23 11:59 a.m., Peter wrote:

> Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> | If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
>> then
>> | they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
>> |
>> | Why are they hiding?
>> | It's almost always to do bad things.
>> |
>>
>> Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
>> own dictatorial government.
>

> Apple is preventing these criminals from harming the government by disabling
> their accounts so it can't happen that they will try to harm the government.

>
>> Or it might be me just using
>> a different computer in a different location.
>

> Don't do that. It's what criminals do.

>
>> Or they might
>> be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
>> likes of Apple and Microsoft.
>

> Which is why Apple and Microsoft SHOULD disable their devices.
> What criminal actions are they hiding?

>
>> Or maybe they're Ukrainian
>> resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
>> their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
>> damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.
>

> Apple does disable devices where Apple suspects criminal activity.
> Don't act like a criminal and Apple won't disable your devices.

>
>>
>> There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew
>>
>> He says that if you have something to hide you probably
>> shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
>> of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
>> women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
>> privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
>> condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
>> of his promiscuous lifestyle.
>

> Why can't these people fully identify themselves to Apple?
> Maybe face id?
>
> Once Apple is satisfied they are not criminals Apple can then unlock their
> device if they bring it into an Apple store to show their government ID.

>
>> | Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on
>> them.
>>
>> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
>> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
>> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
>> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
>> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
>> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."
>

> Apple's role is to protect us from those criminals.
>
> If they don't have government ID to show Apple, then they don't deserve to
> even be in the USA let alone operate a powerful Apple computing device.
>
> You have to ask why are they hiding their identity from Apple.
> Apple has the right to protect its devices from criminals by disabling them.

I don't think I've ever read a more sarcastic post on Usenet.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 1:25:46 PM2/23/22

to

Am 23.02.22 um 09:24 schrieb rabidR04CH:

You are simply a braindead Troll and Trumpist.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Rod Speed

unread,

Feb 23, 2022, 1:34:32 PM2/23/22

to

Peter <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote
> rabidR04CH <ra...@R04.CH> wrote

>> Users of an operating should have
>> the right to use it from wherever, whenever and feel free to connect to
>> a VPN which, at the very least, encrypts the data so that the ISP itself
>> cannot monitor them to the advantage of an oppressive government.
>

> Apple disabled their device because Apple suspected criminal activity.
>
> If they walk into any convenient Apple store and prove they aren't using
> their now disabled Apple devices for criminal activity, and if they show
> their government issued identification to Apple employees to check on
> them, then Apple should remove the disabling lock on their Apple device.

> It's no different than when you park your car illegally and the
> government puts a boot on the wheels so that you can't useit until you
> pay the fine.

Very different, Apple isnt the govt and even with an illegally parked
car, you only have to pay the fine, not prove who you are.

> You should be thanking Apple for preventing suspected criminal actions by
> disabling the device so that it can no longer be used without proving
> your government identification in person at the nearest Apple store.

Mine is 300 miles away and we don't have any govt ID,

If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too?

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burns

Andy Burnelli

nospam

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

nospam

Joerg Lorenz

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Joerg Lorenz

Joerg Lorenz

Joerg Lorenz

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

nospam

nospam

rabidR04CH

Wolffan

Wolffan

rabidR04CH

nospam

nospam

rabidR04CH

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

nospam

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Joerg Lorenz

nospam

nospam

nospam

Andy Burns

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burnelli

Andy Burns

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

Rene Lamontagne

rabidR04CH

nospam

nospam

nospam

nospam

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH

nospam