Posted on 04/14/2008 8:45:24 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts
You have some very good questions and observations. Apple will get blamed for any of the problems of the clones. Microsoft got blamed for poorly-written programs that had problems on Windows, and Windows is full of application-specific hacks as a result. Clones would be very bad for Apple's image.
But as far as the EULA goes, I would like to see that contested and rendered unenforceable in part. Too many EULAs today do their best to strip you of your consumer and even constiutional rights. Many say you can't publish benchmarks or product reviews without consent, which of course means poor scores won't get published and the public will be less informed. Both Microsoft and Network Associates have tried to enforce these. The NA EULA for McAfee was deemed unenforceable after NA used it to silence some unfavorable reviews.
Microsoft backed down rather than have a EULA found unenforceable after some very poor benchmark results (not a hack job, MS reps actually worked with them to try to get better results). Microsoft EULAs don't prevent publication anymore, but they do enforce some rules. I think the rules are reasonable, but it's still an infringement on free speech. They can sue for interference with trade or defanation if unfair benchmarks are published.
On the issue of whether you can load Leopard updates:
” You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.”
That’s all I need to know. I’ll pass
It's also amazing to see how many Macs you see on Nova and the various Discovery Channels on the desks of researchers and scientists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.