OS X is actually my primary operating system. There is some software I still need Windows for though, like Photoshop and Quickbooks Enterprise. I guess I could upgrade that software, but I am not paying thousands for new features I won't use. I had to reactivate because Bootcamp is a pain in the ass, so I removed the partition, installed VirtualBox, and installed on that. It activated fine, and has deactivated itself twice now, necessitating phone calls each time. I have probably been through this process 20 times now, with family computers, Windows XP reinstalls, and the like.
In an effort to expedite your transition away from Windows entirely, may I suggest Pixelmator (http://www.pixelmator.com/) as a Photoshop alternative? It is a pleasure to use and has all of the core features of PS (compositing layers, tools etc).
I have Pixelmator, and I think it's a good 60% solution, but it's no Photoshop. For example, the other day I fired it up to make constrained rectangular marquee selections, and it can't do that. That doesn't sound like a big deal, but I wanted to select at a specific aspect ratio because I needed an image to fit in a specific box. There are lots of little things like that. Not to mention I've been using Photoshop since the 90s, so I'm very proficient with it, it does every single thing I need, and I already paid a lot for it.
There really is not a good substitute for Quickbooks Enterprise. And I forgot Regex Buddy. I downloaded Patterns off the App Store, but it's a poor substitute. Regexes aren't pretty, but if you are hacking on something a quick regex can do a lot for a little.
EDIT: I just re-read this, and thought it sounded a little too negative toward Pixelmator. I think being a good 60% solution in relation to Photoshop is a huge accomplishment, and that Pixelmator is great software. It is absolutely worth the money. It is a very competent intermediate image editor, and would be $30 well spent for anyone. The criticism is mainly directed toward the lack of some esoteric advanced features, and my curmudgeonly desire to have it work exactly like Photoshop, since that is how I have edited images for the last dozen years.
I love Pixelmator but I can't find any way to do nearest-neighbour resizing. Which I figured was the simplest thing to implement. Even MS Paint can do that.
At least for Parallels, if you read the instructions, it says the first time you start up Windows Boot Camp in the VM, do not activate until it has fully installed Parallel Tools and it's drivers. Something in those drivers, which I presume is legal, prevents the infinite activation loop.
Unless he took a physical copy off of a shelf somewhere, he didn't steal anything. Pirated, ripped, copied, used without paying for, there are about 20 possible verbs to describe the act of using software without purchasing a license.
Stealing is not one of them.
I know I'm beating this horse fairly hard, but it's something that people need to be aware of.
Meh. When I create software and someone "takes away" my ability to earn income from it, it feels like stealing.
The "IP infringement is not stealing" line is just what people say when they want something for nothing and they don't want to feel bad about inflicting financial damage upon the original author.
> The "IP infringement is not stealing" line is just what people say when they want something for nothing and they don't want to feel bad about inflicting financial damage upon the original author.
That doesn't make any sense. I don't think anybody is seriously arguing in this thread that copyright infringement is correct or ethical - what we're instead arguing is that, despite the best efforts of the *AA groups, "stealing" is a different crime than "copying without permission". The fact that there's a supreme court case backing this line of reasoning up (in plain language, no less) makes this conflation of terms even less forgivable.
Call the crime what it is.
>When I create software and someone "takes away" my ability to earn income from it..
Except if I copy something of yours without permission, I haven't taken away your ability to do anything. And I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Since your audience includes people who hope to be paid from their creative efforts, your argument that not paying for said creative efforts is perfectly fine may meet with disapproval.
TL:DR; it doesn't matter what semantic games you try to pull, if you're a cheap bastard you're still an ass.