It would have to be generally assumed that everyone was referring to the 'big' games, and/or games otherwise that were of technical and artistic merit enough to warrant people still being interested in it over long term, and it having generic multiplay. Given that the number of games in that class is few to begin with (considerably less than one per year; completely nonexistant on consoles), it's also safe to assume that there are enough die-hard geeks to get around, and a fair majority will survive.
You're forgetting a few case examples: there are geeks running third party, wholly independent Microsoft Allegiance servers, and -nobody- played that game when it was live, nearly ten years ago. It effectively gets more players now, than Microsoft ever attracted with a fee.
WoW private servers are mostly dead when WoW goes down (if it happened today, mind), because everyone is complacent about the degree of bugs and incompleteness and the level of inflation. That's generally not the case with other private servers, such as EverQuest or Lineage 2, where if something isn't considered 'feature/game complete' at least to a specific expansion period,
You have 100000 WoW private servers with 2 people each, vs a few hundred Lineage 2 servers with a few dozen people each, or a handful of EverQuest servers with a few hundred or thousand people each. Anecdotal, but...yeah.
EverQuest private servers also kinda sucked in 2004 (five years after EQ's initial release, yes, EQEmu was around back then), Lineage 2 private servers were actually good in 2008 (five years after initial), but we're only five years out from the original World of Warcraft. Assuming anyone still cares, and project managers have dropped the idiocracy, then WoW private servers will have a shot at being pretty great in 2014, maybe. I know that 'everybody' wants them to hurry up, but in WoW's case vs. other games, it's significantly more a matter of project maintainers not caring about quality, while traditionally most of the projects for larger MMOs have strived for a large degree of perfection (and more than one alternative; competition breeds better output, there's only one type of WoW private server).
Since the summary is titled "OS X Update Officially Kills Intel Atom Support", I can't blame you for thinking Apple dropped support for the Atom.
The truth of the matter is, Apple never actually supported the Atom if you're talking about official support.
That's fine, but that has one big problem: it requires users to know the root password. On a large multi-user system, that's likely undesirable.
A big benefit of sudo is that (if I'm not mistaken) it lets you specify particular programs that users can run. For example, I may want a user to be able to "/etc/init.d/apache2 restart", but nothing else.
Very carefully, though, they still keep your xbox live account active and charge you the subscription fee.
That's interesting. I wonder what the legal position is with them doing that.
Disclaimer; IANAL. They might get away with it in the US, but if it came to court within the EU, I suspect that they'd lose due to the stronger consumer laws. Regardless of any legal weaselling over how they defined words, and what they said in the contract, in effect what they've done is to cancel the service that is being paid for (and done it *themselves*). Any reasonable person would assume that they are no longer being charged for a service that is no longer being supplied.
This tends to disagree with your first point.
Sure it was only a "section" of the country...but it was 55 million people. Can't really call that kind of think "overstated."
The problem is the Atom supports a similar instruction set to the standard processors.
If its 'similar' and not 'the same', (I don't know, I am taking your word for it) then it would need to be tested separately.
None of your products use it, so you aren't going to waste money testing it. If it hasn't been tested then their is a chance it might not work as designed.
I think as an apple exec you would then have the following decision to make:
1. Release untested code that works on Atom.
2. Release tested code that is disabled on Atom.
In scenario 1 you please a niche (likely non-profitable) group. Possible headline in the press is 'Mac OS X is buggy' - which is understood by all - with the caveat 'on non apple hardware' - which is understood by few. This is bad PR, that is widespread and (mis)understood by many.
In scenario 2 you piss of your niche (likely non-profitable) group. There is no mainstream-newsworthy story, at least not one which everyone understands, or even cares about. A few people on tech sites debate the ins and outs.
As a shareholder, you choose option 2 every time. You don't get a market cap of $185bn without maybe upsetting a few people along the way, for sure you make sure you don't upset large groups of potential customers though.
If one is so desperate to run Mac OS X then one should probably just buy a Mac. Yeah it sucks that they are expensive. Valuable things often are.
Oh you mean outside your head?
Very simple: A password!
Or more exact: A password-protected thing that stores your other passwords. It can really be anything. I use KDEs KWallet.
And Firefox's password manager, encrypted and protected by a master-password (which you can set in Firefox's own settings dialog, if you had looked there for even a second!)
(Firefox sadly needs a lot of manual scripting hackery to integrate into KWallet).
But really, anything password-protected and encrypted is good enough. Even a text file. If it's on an encrypted drive on an USB stick.
There are tons of possibilities. Use whatever suits your needs best.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll