All-in-One PCs

On 2/25/2016 2:35 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-25 07:24:23 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:53:06 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-25 03:46:41 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:39 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But is it a EULA violation in spite of the Apple brand? You are
welcome to place bets but it is not within your competence to
make a
binding decision.

there's no need to make a decision.

it's an eula violation if you run os x on a computer that's not
apple-branded, whose meaning is very, very clear.

Haw.

Wait until the lawyers get hold of it.

what for? it's clear as can be.

You really think I'm just being difficult, don't you?

looks that way.

how can anyone possibly claim that a computer cobbled together by a
third party is an apple-branded computer, particularly when hacks
must
be done for mac os to even run?

The question is, is it Apple-branded or is it not? You want to claim
that it is not but, if you are right, what is the meaning of the
factory embossed logo on the case which holds it all together?

The damn case with the Apple logo prominent is obviously an Apple
branded CASE. That is all it is. It is by no stretch of the imagination
an 'Apple branded computer'.

Another bloody lawyer. :-(

Now will you two, or is it three or four, just cut this crap and kill
this never ending thread.

It will end. Just kill it if in the mean time you don't like it.

Oh for crying out loud! Just take this Studebaker for a long ride.
https://cntryroses.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/img_3541.jpg


Is that pulled by a Studebaker-made horse?

On 2016-02-25 14:17:54 +0000, PAS said:

On 2/25/2016 2:35 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-25 07:24:23 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:53:06 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-02-25 03:46:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:39 -0500, nospam
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But is it a EULA violation in spite of the Apple brand? You are
welcome to place bets but it is not within your competence to make a
binding decision.

there's no need to make a decision.

it's an eula violation if you run os x on a computer that's not
apple-branded, whose meaning is very, very clear.

Haw.

Wait until the lawyers get hold of it.

what for? it's clear as can be.

You really think I'm just being difficult, don't you?

looks that way.

how can anyone possibly claim that a computer cobbled together by a
third party is an apple-branded computer, particularly when hacks must
be done for mac os to even run?

The question is, is it Apple-branded or is it not? You want to claim
that it is not but, if you are right, what is the meaning of the
factory embossed logo on the case which holds it all together?

The damn case with the Apple logo prominent is obviously an Apple
branded CASE. That is all it is. It is by no stretch of the imagination
an 'Apple branded computer'.

Another bloody lawyer. :-(

Now will you two, or is it three or four, just cut this crap and kill
this never ending thread.

It will end. Just kill it if in the mean time you don't like it.

Oh for crying out loud! Just take this Studebaker for a long ride.
https://cntryroses.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/img_3541.jpg


Is that pulled by a Studebaker-made horse?

;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


Apple might feel they wanted to enforce their EULA if my son decided
to run OS X. That's what all this argument has been about.

your son can run whatever he likes on an apple case. The EULA
doesn't mention any restrictions on using Apple cases.
he can even stick an Aple CD in his mouth and claim he is an apple disc
drive
apple won't mind until he starts selling his services as an apple disc
drive.
What he can't do is run OS X on an acer board and sell it claiming it's
an apple product.

You are nearly as bad as nospam. You have to distort the situation to
enable you to mount an argument against it.


I'm not the one distoring it you are. You;ve not even answered teh Q as to
why your son is spending money on a 15 year-old Aple case when there's plenty
of PC cases on the market. If you can't work it out ask your son he seems to know.

he explained that already, because unlike pc cases, it easily pops open.

On 2/23/2016 10:26 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I shall repeat: At one stage if you wanted a 4-wd Honda you got an
Isuzu branded with a Honda badge.
http://a2goos.com/data_images/models...horizon-05.jpg

i'll repeat again. that came from the factory that way.

It never went near the Honda factory. They were made by Isuzu with
just the badges supplied by Honda.

i didn't say honda factory.

honda authorized it, therefore it's a legitimate honda-branded vehicle.

if you bought a honda and then installed isuzu parts yourself, it's not
a honda vehicle anymore. it's a custom home-built.

You are struggling.

it ain't me who is struggling.


You would never do that. There's no need. You are always right.

--
PeterN

On 2/24/2016 1:13 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Nor were they selling Apple branded
computers. Further, what Psystar were doing was arguably
in breach of the Apple EULA.

Sandman:
Indeed, which is why it's relevant. They wanted
to interpret the EULA in their own way, which was
obviously not what Apple had in mind when they wrote it.
The court sided with Apple, for obvious reasons.

PeterN:
Not obvious at all, unless you know "ALL" of the
facts, and the applicable law of the jurisdiction. Apple
uses multiple agreements, some of which may not be EULAs.

Sandman:
Irrelevant, the Psystar case was in reference to the EULA.

PeterN:
Nice try. You are assuming only one EULA. Without at least
knowing which one, no rational conclusion can be drawn. Some
jurisdictions have some of the finest judges money can buy.

Sandman:
If you have an actual point, state it. As of now, you're only
lowering the signal to noise ratio.

I did.

Nothing that related to anything I've said, no.




Let's see. You mention a case being about a EULA. I point out that Apple
has multiple EULAs, and you claim that statement is unrelated.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Nor were they selling Apple branded
computers. Further, what Psystar were doing was
arguably in breach of the Apple EULA.

Sandman:
Indeed, which is why it's relevant. They
wanted to interpret the EULA in their own way, which
was obviously not what Apple had in mind when they
wrote it. The court sided with Apple, for obvious
reasons.

PeterN:
Not obvious at all, unless you know "ALL" of the
facts, and the applicable law of the jurisdiction. Apple
uses multiple agreements, some of which may not be
EULAs.

Sandman:
Irrelevant, the Psystar case was in reference to
the EULA.

PeterN:
Nice try. You are assuming only one EULA. Without at
least knowing which one, no rational conclusion can be
drawn. Some jurisdictions have some of the finest judges
money can buy.

Sandman:
If you have an actual point, state it. As of now, you're only
lowering the signal to noise ratio.

PeterN:
I did.

Sandman:
Nothing that related to anything I've said, no.

Let's see. You mention a case being about a EULA. I point out that
Apple has multiple EULAs, and you claim that statement is unrelated.

Correct, since the case in question, and the topic being discussed up to that
case was introduced only concerned one EULA. Not only that, an earlier version
of that EUAL has also been linked to in this very thread, making it very clear
just what EULA the discussion is about. So any talk about other EULA's are,
indeed, irrelevant.

--
Sandman

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the point of 4k/5k display is its high resolution so that
everything looks sharper.

And I have to print more than 14" wide to match a 5k pixel for
pixel.

How is your math, here? That would mean you have a 7 megapixel camera.

14 * 218 (iMac ppi) = 3,052
3,052 / 4 * 3 = 2,289
3,052 * 2,289 = 6,986,028

But I believe you have a D750 with a resolution of 24MP (6,016 × 4,016), and
printing such a photo at 14" would yield a DPI of 429 DPI, almost twice the
resolution of the iMac 5K.

You'd have to print such a photo at 27.5" wide to match the iMac "pixel for
pixel".

5k is 5120 x 2880

5120 pixels printed at 360 ppi = 14.22" wide. Nothing to do with my
original image.

what were you planning on printing, if not your original image?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As for the two Dell screens being 'low-res' - I don't know. I'm
primarily concerned with printed output and don't expect to get
any
real advantage out of the higher res 4k screen.

there is a huge advantage with hi-dpi displays.

What does it matter, if I can't print them?

of course you can print it.

Don't be more silly than is necessary.

I can't print in a resolution to suit a 4k screen unless I want to
print to a large size.

nonsense.

the point of 4k/5k display is its high resolution so that everything
looks sharper.

And I have to print more than 14" wide to match a 5k pixel for pixel.

nope.

Yep.

If you disagree, prove it.

there's nothing to prove.

you can print at whatever size you want, regardless of the resolution
of the display or the image itself.

a lower resolution display just means more zooming and panning while
you edit the image and a lower resolution image means the quality of
the print will be lower.

Whisky-dave wrote:
-hh wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
-hh wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
-hh wrote:
After reading many pages to see if there's anything actually
interesting being discussed,

I see that Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
Me? ... All along I have been saying that
there is room for someone to argue a definition which conflicts with
the one that you nospam and Whisky-dave think should carry the day.
I'm not saying it's necessarily the right definition. But it's a
legitimate argument and it all hangs on the details of Apple's brand
practices.

If I understood correctly, the point of debate is if an
Apple case (or perhaps even more subsystems)

No the just the case as far as I know.

True enough, but I was purposefully painting with a broad brush.

No that's the blur tool, a broad brush is quite differnt ;-P

A broad's brush, is a brush owned or should we say branded as a brush
belonging to a north american women.

In the UK a broad's bush will be quite differnt. So beware of typo's

Humor attempt fail(s).

Well a broad brush and the blur tool are similar, to me you were using a blur

Well, at least your 'recovery' comment did make me laugh.


which contains
a clearly non-OEM third party PC motherboard could ... "could"
be potentially considered compliant with the EULA's notion of
what constitutes 'Apple branding' for compliance.

well it didn;t when he brought it, I'm not sure if it had a
logic board, HD or anything else.

Which again focusing on the pedantic minutia of these particular
specifics,

Whether or not it has a MAc PC or no mother board insiode a computer
case isn;t pedantic minutia, especailly if buying it.

Except for the part which was deliberate myopia, attempting to avoid the
broader points. Your motives are as transparent as a watercolor.

There are no broader points.

Incorrect, because the question of which particular pieces
of hardware happened to be involved in said purchase are
irrelevant, because the use case did not intend for it to
remain as a OEM analogous system. The reason we know this
is because the particulars included motherboard, which we
also know happens to be a non-commodity part for this IP
question...even though technologically it does not strictly
have to be a non-commodity part to prompt this delineator.


Well for instance if you're memory is 80ns (thinking of the
older macpluses I changed memeory for) and someone decided
that a cheaper PC moidule of 120ns will work and it doesn;t
is that Apples fault ?

Depends on who said a 120ns will work.

Of course..

If Apple's specs said
that a particular commodity spec 120ns stick meets their
requirements and it doesn't work, it is Apple's fault.

Depending on why the chip won't work of course not all 120ns will.
Thres parity enabled ECC non ECC and other variations of hardware.
Differtnt numbver of pins etc...

OTOH, if it was Joe Blow who said that you could ignore Apple's
specs for a 80ns part and use a 120ns instead, all consequences
are then Joe Blow's fault, not Apple's.

yes same as anything else.

Which illustrates that this was merely YA smokescreen attempt oo.


If Erics son want to put a acer board in a mac case that's up to him.
The Apple police won't turn up.

Your personal opinion, even though I happen to agree.

It's more than an opinion it's the facts.

The facts here are that Apple has the right to enforce their EULA,
which means that they're free to choose to send their police over.
That observations have shown that they've not done this does not
constitute a definitive proof that they never will...it merely means
that the statistical risk appears to be quite low (but never zero).

What if Apple decided to put code in ther which test the speed
and if it falls below 80 the chip is rejected ...

It is still "Documentation 101", regardless of what kind of
conceptual validation test it might be. Got any more rabbit holes
to try?

I'm not the one trying them.

I'll believe that when you start to actually discuss the topic broadly,
rather than to search out nuances which are beneath the general
legal / IP principles.

I'm not Eric is.

The claim of guilt of another does not absolve you from your
own choice of actions.



I don;t think Apple designed their cases to be non standard
so people couldn;t install PC parts. I thought they designed
it so their parts would fit in.

Probably so, but my main point was the pragmatism that some
old brain cells are niggling that their form factor might not
have been identical to that used by Windows PCs,

Well it isn't as far as I know.

Unless you've done an Intel motherboard swap in a late series PowerMac
to have knowledge, that claim is a useless one.

Well I haven't put I got my ACE cert in 1992.
Apple explained it to me on that course when I tried to
source no apple memory parts to upgrade a quadra.

News Flash! OEM wants its techs to use OEM parts; Film at 11.



so its something
for the DIY'er to keep an eye out for ... ie, resist the
temptation to force it under a belief that it MUST fit.

Anfd even if they can get a PC motherboard into a Aple case it does not
make the resulting 'computer' an Apple computer or an Apple bramded computer.

Which merely means that you've _almost_ reached the starting point of the
'broad brush' topical conversation, even if you don't really know why.

I do.
It's Eric that's having the problem.

Funny how you're not showing it. And once again, the allegation of
guilt of another does not absolve you from your own choice of actions.


-hh

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:21:51 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As for the two Dell screens being 'low-res' - I don't know. I'm
primarily concerned with printed output and don't expect to get
any
real advantage out of the higher res 4k screen.

there is a huge advantage with hi-dpi displays.

What does it matter, if I can't print them?

of course you can print it.

Don't be more silly than is necessary.

I can't print in a resolution to suit a 4k screen unless I want to
print to a large size.

nonsense.

the point of 4k/5k display is its high resolution so that everything
looks sharper.

And I have to print more than 14" wide to match a 5k pixel for pixel.

nope.

Yep.

If you disagree, prove it.

there's nothing to prove.

you can print at whatever size you want, regardless of the resolution
of the display or the image itself.

a lower resolution display just means more zooming and panning while
you edit the image and a lower resolution image means the quality of
the print will be lower.

You obviously don't get down to 100% when checking noise, sharpness
etc.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens