Wim <objectief@???> wrote:

> I still have my previous model, I suppose I ought to try a native install on it - and perhaps see if I can get OS X running as a VM.
>
> I would prefer dual booting personally, since running OSX in a VM isn't always perfect. Fi, access to external hardware over USB, like audio interfaces, doesn't work properly. Harddisks and the usual stuff like HID devices just works.

I don't like dual boot. It's OK for something where all OSs are only used intermittently so it's no problem to shut down and boot into something else. It's a real PITA when the main OS is used all day long, and you've a gazilion web pages open, and need access to your mail while booted in the other OS, and ...
Obviously that's a matter of personal preference.

> * Yes, the one with the faulty SATA that doesn't like 3gbps drives - you try finding a drive these days that has a jumper for 1.5gbps operation :-(
>
> You don't need to jumper drives. I've never encountered any drive that doesn't work with these machines.

You have been lucky then. I've tried several, and every drive I tried did not work (I think I must have tried about 3, different makes - including buying another new 750G that didn't work) - it would appear to connect etc, but once "in use" would cause constant errors. I did try the local genius bar, and they were more helpful than I expected (2nd hand machine, out of warranty). First off he was able to see from the service history that it had already had a ribbon cable replacement which I gather was the usual suspect. And he did run some tests - but as it wasn't an Apple drive he couldn't do much more.

In the end, I looked at the drive model, looked up the specs, and saw that there was a 500G version - this machine had 250 in it originally. So I kept an eye on eBay until an Apple branded one came up and got that - and added a second one in the optical drive bay.

Incidentally it was only one or two models that had this problem - I think mine was the first. Earlier models only supported 1.5G SATA, later models fixed the issue. These had a 3G SATA interface which was "flaky" if urn at 3G, but the drives Apple used were only 1.5G. It was only when people upgraded with "other" drives that the problem showed up.
There's was fair bit of noise in the forums about it for a while.

> OSX even sends UNSAVED documents to the cloud, according to some.

If you let it ;-)
But yes, it defaults to pressuring you to linking up with your Apple account so it can automatically sync stuff. Most of the builtin applications now autosave as they go along - so it's not surprising that the autosave versions get synced.
Safari also defaults to sending every URL you edit to Google (via Apple ?) - not just what you type, but the entire URL. It's also irritatingly stupid in that it will sometimes decide that your url doesn't look like a url and do a search or it will decide that your search term looks like a url and fail to load it. I'm of the school where if I type into a search box I expect it to search, and if I type in a url box I expect it to be treated as a url - and the two boxes are different things and should be separate.


> I don't think legislation to keep hardware "open" will work. Legislators tend not to understand the matter and hardware manufacturers are way too clever bypassing laws.

I agree. Something is only likely to happen "after the fact" if enough people complain. I suspect that the same law that got the guy (in the link I posted earlier) a refund and his legal costs paid might go somewhere. If the hardware won't run an "unapproved" OS, then it might be possible to argue that it's a form of tying - ie you can't use X unless you buy Y - which I wasn't actually aware was specifically illegal over here.

Now, if people go into ${shop} and buy a PC, and specifically mention that you'll be needing to run other OSs on it, then it doesn't matter if the sales guy knows what EFI is or whether secure boot can be turned off or not - if it can't boot your OS then it's not fit for the purpose you stated when you bought it and you are entitled to a refund.
Getting a full refund is really expensive for the retailer - they get a product back that they can't sell as new (and if it's mail.online they legally have to pay carriage both ways), so they will make a loss even if they eventually sell it as "grade B". So there is an opportunity to hit the retailers of such crap with costs and influence what they stock. We have no clout with manufacturers, but if (big) retailers decide not to stock things that cost them money then that will get noticed.
I wouldn't want to do this to "the little guys", but IMO the big chains are fair game - and if they have a statistically significant quantity of returns then they are likely to be asking questions of the manufacturer.