S4doll

The Palladium project was shut down because they quickly realized that the cons outweighed the pros. It soon became clear that controlling all the hardware was impossible; moreover, the system was inadequate to counter the proliferation of viruses and worms, which ultimately undermined the credibility of the project's security. What remains of it today is represented by DRM, fortunately removable with specific tools in the latest versions.

Dear Den Vlaams, I could spend half an hour of my life trying to explain to you why Thatcher, Rice, and Palin are repulsive figures (okay, maybe I was a bit harsh on Rice), but I have better things to do. Plus, if you give this review/book a 5, you have your convictions, and I certainly don’t want to change your mind.

Palladium is dead and buried since before the release of Vista. Win95 wasn’t exactly a flop, huh :P the only other disaster for MS (both technically and economically speaking) was Windows Millennium, a premature fusion of the NT system with the Windows client... not surprisingly, in 2001 a revised and corrected version was released under the name Windows XP: history seems destined to repeat itself, since Seven is nothing more than a revised and corrected version of Vista, which improves memory management, streamlines Vista’s elephantine kernel, and eliminates a plethora of unnecessary and annoying sub-routines present instead in the 2007 OS. MS benefits from the negative publicity surrounding Vista nowadays; it helps sell Seven better.

In ancient times, Nero was also distributed as freeware... however, the OEM version of the Nero suite is bundled with the purchase of burners or complete configurations. I believe I have the full suite from 2006, never registered, also because they charge you for various updates, and the world hasn't really moved much beyond dual-layer DVDs. Blu-ray is somewhat of a flop for now, and even the future looks gray :P

hmmm, where to begin... so Bartle, it largely depends on which work sector we consider, there are software on Mac that, in terms of simplicity, immediacy, and flexibility, are superior to their Windows counterparts: this is a fact, but it only pertains to a limited number of professions, among which graphic design certainly stands out, though it remains that the reference software, namely Photoshop, is available on both platforms, PC and Mac. The issue of viruses is outdated; PCs are no longer what they were 20 years ago, and even then the main cause was the fact that those who created viruses and worms aimed to infect as many machines as possible, and obviously, the number of PCs is infinitely greater than that of Macs. The foundation of my criticism goes beyond the professional sphere, where PCs and Macs have both strengths and weaknesses, and where an engineer who needs to render in AutoCAD continuously for three weeks will choose a PC, while a graphic designer preparing a magazine cover will likely choose a Mac. My criticism is directed towards the private sphere, which ironically was somewhat an idea of Apple in the 90s, "the computer for everyone." The reasons I have already explained; it is a fact that the Mac is a closed platform unlike the PC; with a Mac, you buy the software they tell you to, and above all, the hardware they tell you. And you pay three times what you would pay for a PC, but that's part of the game when you buy a "brand" more than a product. The Mac is not customizable; you can't change anything because simply there are no drivers developed for hardware other than what Apple sells you; the Mac is not repairable; if you have a malfunction, even a ridiculous little thing, you have to send it for assistance, where they keep it for weeks or months and charge you hundreds of euros for labor to replace a faulty hard disk (an operation that takes about 20 seconds). The Mac is far from bug-free; it’s just that Apple issues very generic statements paired with update patches of hundreds of megabytes; Snow Leopard (the latest OS) was recently at the center of a scandal for a bug concerning the guest account security—not a laughing matter—but the fixes are quietly released because they are part of the marketing regarding the system's robustness compared to Windows; heaven forbid to tarnish the myth. Lastly, and here we touch on the most sensitive aspect, namely the wallet: a Mac costing 2000 euros has performance comparable to that of a PC costing 500 euros, without exaggerating. This last fact probably doesn't concern those who use the Mac to check emails or write nonsense on Facebook, but for doing this, you don't need a 1200-euro Mac (the average price of a standard Mac); a netbook PC costing 200 euros is enough. The rest is all marketing.

But there’s no need to scratch too deep; Jobs is a very intelligent person in a world where superficiality reigns supreme: people prefer design over substance, convenience over performance, exclusivity over open source. Those who buy a Mac are aware that they are buying a Ferrari with the engine of a Panda and paying the price of a real Ferrari: it has become more important to show that you own a Ferrari, which isn’t one under the hood, rather than having spent less on a Porsche that, however, does have a Porsche engine. Then there’s the whole iPod and iPhone discussion, but that’s a different story, even though it’s still all about marketing.

Jobs is the god of marketing; he could sell ice to Eskimos. It's incredible how he resurrected a closed system like the Mac, transforming it into a trendy and snobbish accessory, and how he manages to sell the software for slightly less than the competition, and the hardware at three times its actual value because there's an apple printed on it. A genius of evil, like Gates, but even more brilliant and more wicked.

The re-evaluations of dreadful figures like Thatcher, Rice, and Palin by Carfagna must be inspiring when you go to the bathroom.

It's strange that after the total flop in the USA, the production decided to push for marketing in Europe; it was obvious from a mile away that it was nothing special... the Oscar for DC is one of the most glaring blunders of the Academy, materializing with a film where a very light script is elevated by a talented director and cast. The film with Megan Fox confirms everything that was thought, especially the fact that she is incredibly hot. But the interest ends here; I completely agree with the review.

I am better as voice actors.