All-in-One PCs

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.

you obviously didn't understand what i wrote.

On 25 Feb 2016 16:41:18 GMT, 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.

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.

I was the one who first cited a particular EULA as an example. Nowhere
was the suggestion made that this was the EULA which applied to this
particular situation or that the discussion was restricted to this one
EULA.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:35:48 -0800, 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

That ain't a Studebaker. Too many changes and part substitutions have
been made since 1858. It's a cobbled together home-built replica.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 03:13:46 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 23:07:27 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:29:34 -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?

Nah I'd say impossible.


Well, I'm not. At this level the whole thing is a mares-nest.

Not for most of us.
You see some of us know what an Apple computer is, because we've owned them some of us have owned more than one, so we know what they are.
OTOH you see an apple sticker on my kitchen tiles and think my kitchen was designed by Apple or is Apple branded.

Have you authority to apply Apple's brand on this equipment?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 02:34:49 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 21:20:04 UTC, Eric Stevens 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.

I think I have told you three times now.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:46:30 -0500, nospam
wrote:

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.

That's one factor. Another is it's cheaper than buying a new case
which he likes.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 25 Feb 2016 12:52:37 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
You did write exactly what I quoted above. The fact that you wrote
even more doesn't mean the quote is "misquoted" nor that I am a
liar.

Tell the truth, **the whole truth**, and nothing but the truth. The
English courts had experience of people like you a l o n g time ago.

What I said above was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Bull****.

And to compound your lying you have _again_ concealed what I actually
wrote by deleting the text which I had restored. You are a nasty piece
of work.

Sandman:
Indeed, it makes *you* a liar for making in incorrect and explicit
statement about my actions.

"again you have to lie"

Haw. That's a lie?

Indeed.

Sandman:
"...by misquoting"

That's not a lie either.

Incorrect. I did no misquoting, and you claimed I did. It is true that you
could merely be mistaken, but you have lost the benefit of a doubt many years
ago.

Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and from
which you quoted but one short sentence.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 03:03:10 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 21:40:02 UTC, -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

It's different again in Norfolk.



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.


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.
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.

That was not the original point at issue. That was whether or not
running OS X on the contrivance might be a breach of the EULA.



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 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.

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.



for installing PC In this regards,
please let us know how the project goes for him.

Yes be intresting to see what happens, would be great for a
photograph to be made availible too, but that might be taking
things a little too OT ;-)

We'll see if it includes an internal neon light kit and the
side aluminum panel replaced with glass ;-)

I want to see the white/blue LED blink sas sexily as it did on my G4 while sleeping.


-hh
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:33:07 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:48:53 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

Well, there's a nospamism if there ever was one!

What do you think "branding" is?

Something that is "branded" is a product that is identifiable as
having been produced by a particular company.

that's why there's a logo on the logic board.

once again, you fail to read.

i didn't say there was no branding at all.

Yes you did. Right above.

nope.

i said "as would be with a computer". in other words, there is branding
but it's different.

I love to watch you wriggle around! What "other words" mean branding
is not branding?

i didn't say branding is not branding.

you're the wriggly one trying to twist things.

A computer is branded to show that it is made by a particular company.
A logic board is branded to show that is made by a particular company.
It's exactly the same.

nobody said otherwise.

What do you think the difference is? Smaller letters? Different
font?

whoosh

i said the branding of the
parts is not the same as that of a completed computer with regards to
the eula, which is what this is about.

You didn't say anything about the EULA.

the entire discussion has been about the eula, which clearly states
that mac os x is licensed for use only on an apple-branded computer.

eric is trying to claim that stuffing a pc logic board into a mac case
qualifies as an apple-branded computer. it does not.

No you didn't. You're adding that now as a means to twist away.

nope.

Only in your imagination.

nope. it's reality.

the eula specifies an apple-branded computer, not apple-branded parts.

What makes up an Apple-branded computer?

Are you saying that the Apple EULA permits the replacement of
Apple-branded parts with non-Apple parts?

replacing memory or the hard drive doesn't change the branding.

replacing the logic board with a pc logic board absolutely, without
question, does change the branding. it is no longer an apple-branded
computer.

It is no longer an Apple-branded Apple computer, but the EULA does not
require that it is.

Oops!

It is no longer an Apple-branded mother board, but the EULA does not
require that it is.


it's now a hackintosh, although usually they're in generic pc
enclosures, not an apple case.


the branding of the parts does not matter. there are non-apple parts in
there too, including intel, nvidia, samsung and others.

Oh, so branded parts are not important? So if you order a logic board
for your Mac, but it's not branded as an Apple product, you wouldn't
care?

you can't order a logic board for a mac because apple doesn't sell them
to end users.

Now you've introduced a new "in other words": Apple selling direct to
end users.

http://www.welovemacs.com/aplobo.html
http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Mac-Pro-L...ds-c-5188.html

that's not apple selling them.

go to the apple store and as if you can buy just a logic board. they'll
tell you 'no'.

a lot of those places part out old computers. those are not necessarily
coming from apple.

not that it matters because that does not matter as far as the eula is
concerned.

logic boards are copyrightable and have a © with the year the board was
designed.

OK, I was wrong there.

yes you were.

Now you admit you are wrong about the rest.

nope, because i'm not wrong.

i am 100% correct that a hackintosh is not an apple-branded computer,
even if it's in an apple branded box. therefore it's an eula violation.

Neither is a Dell an Apple-branded computer. But, that's not what's
being discussed in this part of the thread.

actually it is what's being discussed.

Then go away into a corner and talk to yourself. We will all be much
happier.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


What makes up an Apple-branded computer?

Are you saying that the Apple EULA permits the replacement of
Apple-branded parts with non-Apple parts?

replacing memory or the hard drive doesn't change the branding.

replacing the logic board with a pc logic board absolutely, without
question, does change the branding. it is no longer an apple-branded
computer.

It is no longer an Apple-branded Apple computer, but the EULA does not
require that it is.

Oops!

It is no longer an Apple-branded mother board,

the pc board never was an apple-branded logic board so it can't 'no
longer' be one.

but the EULA does not
require that it is.

yes it most certainly does, in very clear english and multiple times.