Michael383
Apr 17, 12:14 AM
Best of luck to people at both stores tomorrow.
Thunderhawks
Apr 2, 11:36 AM
HTC and LG have the factory space to try and compete, so they do.
Nintendo makes products for 6 year old girls.
Apple is not interested in what is today known as "3D" which is just two out of focus images hurting your eyes.
Thank you for mentioning the "3D" issue.
It gives people head aches and I feel really ripped off at the movie theaters, when they charge for these glasses, that you theoretically could keep and use again and again etc.
But...........we know why they $ell them.
Nintendo makes products for 6 year old girls.
Apple is not interested in what is today known as "3D" which is just two out of focus images hurting your eyes.
Thank you for mentioning the "3D" issue.
It gives people head aches and I feel really ripped off at the movie theaters, when they charge for these glasses, that you theoretically could keep and use again and again etc.
But...........we know why they $ell them.
Ja Di ksw
Sep 12, 02:12 PM
From Coverflow's website:
"We are pleased to announce that all CoverFlow technology and intellectual property was recently sold to Apple. It has been incorporated into the latest version of iTunes."
Nice, thank you :). I liked Coverflow's application, glad they incorporated it. To be honest, though, I thought it looked better as the previous app . . . .
"We are pleased to announce that all CoverFlow technology and intellectual property was recently sold to Apple. It has been incorporated into the latest version of iTunes."
Nice, thank you :). I liked Coverflow's application, glad they incorporated it. To be honest, though, I thought it looked better as the previous app . . . .
talkingfuture
Apr 14, 09:06 AM
More great news. I wonder where the limit on this growth will be?
gonnabuyamacbsh
Apr 14, 10:04 AM
My heart belongs to thinkpads :p
love iphones, itouches, and ipads though
Seriously though, not surprising at all considering that Macs (along with Thinkpads) are the best in the industry and people clearly know it.
I wonder if after a certain period of time and after enough market share is gained, viruses and malaware will start attacking mac os...
love iphones, itouches, and ipads though
Seriously though, not surprising at all considering that Macs (along with Thinkpads) are the best in the industry and people clearly know it.
I wonder if after a certain period of time and after enough market share is gained, viruses and malaware will start attacking mac os...
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
monsterinawc
Aug 3, 10:08 PM
sorry bout this post
my brother in law wanted to try the forums out and so i let him use my account
he thinks he know what he talking about when it comes to macs
my brother in law wanted to try the forums out and so i let him use my account
he thinks he know what he talking about when it comes to macs
SuperJudge
Apr 8, 08:11 AM
I'm sorry SuperJudge. I should have worded myself better. What I'm trying to say is that the information presented on the web page that I referenced points to contextual clues that would require one to know the Hebrew language to understand. Additionally, understanding Hebrew history in terms of traditional beliefs and culture is also beneficial when understanding the connections between the old and new testament and hence the old and new covenant. We believe that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament.
I didn't mean to imply that traditional Jewish belief supports the concept of the trinity. Obviously, it does not as they interpret the old testament as a stand alone without the revelation of the new testament.
I didn't intend to be confusing, just to point out that simply reading the old testament on its own in a modern translation might not bring out all of the nuances that are there in the original language and context.
For answers regarding how the old testament itself does point to a triune God then look at the web page I referenced in my previous post.
I see what you're saying now. I disagree to large extent, because of those same nuances in ancient Hebrew that are paralleled in other ancient Semitic languages that belonged to non-monotheistic peoples and what scholarly research has to say about the evolution of Jewish beliefs from the period of the Exodus Forward.
I think I understand where you're coming from, though, and I realize that I am coming from a very different sort of place.
I didn't mean to imply that traditional Jewish belief supports the concept of the trinity. Obviously, it does not as they interpret the old testament as a stand alone without the revelation of the new testament.
I didn't intend to be confusing, just to point out that simply reading the old testament on its own in a modern translation might not bring out all of the nuances that are there in the original language and context.
For answers regarding how the old testament itself does point to a triune God then look at the web page I referenced in my previous post.
I see what you're saying now. I disagree to large extent, because of those same nuances in ancient Hebrew that are paralleled in other ancient Semitic languages that belonged to non-monotheistic peoples and what scholarly research has to say about the evolution of Jewish beliefs from the period of the Exodus Forward.
I think I understand where you're coming from, though, and I realize that I am coming from a very different sort of place.
theheadguy
Apr 12, 11:45 AM
If they build it from scratch, they could probably design the place with working conditions that don't make people as suicidal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104449&referrerid=51132).
Apple Picker
Mar 28, 01:48 PM
Great, another store that carries iPad 2 but won't ever have any in stock. LOL.
Unfortunately I think 80% of iPad 2 supply is going to scalpers and resellers, the moment Apple stores get them in stock they sell out and craigslist is then flooded with heavily marked up iPads. It's kind of ridiculous.
On a related note, isn't it a bit weird Apple hasn't announced any sales figures yet? They're usually quick to brag when devices hit a million sales in a short amount of time.
They can't come up with a million sales yet because they were not able to produce the units before they launch it. That's why there is short supply on stores and people can't have it ASAP.
It's like apple is "testing the water before they cross the river".
They made the supply low so it will look like it is really on demand. and make the people drooling waiting.
If they will come up with the number, probably it's made up!
Unfortunately I think 80% of iPad 2 supply is going to scalpers and resellers, the moment Apple stores get them in stock they sell out and craigslist is then flooded with heavily marked up iPads. It's kind of ridiculous.
On a related note, isn't it a bit weird Apple hasn't announced any sales figures yet? They're usually quick to brag when devices hit a million sales in a short amount of time.
They can't come up with a million sales yet because they were not able to produce the units before they launch it. That's why there is short supply on stores and people can't have it ASAP.
It's like apple is "testing the water before they cross the river".
They made the supply low so it will look like it is really on demand. and make the people drooling waiting.
If they will come up with the number, probably it's made up!
Nipsy
Oct 14, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Uh. Windows does have the support. I can play MP3s in Windows Media Player. I can write programs using the API to play MP3s, WMA, ASF, whatever. Maybe you mean to encode? Sure, Microsoft didn't want to pay Fraunhofer for the license, since they have their own audio format that works just fine.
Out of the box Win2k does not map mp3 files to an application.
Product activation. Just sends info on computer--no personal info. One click. No big deal. Microsoft is just protecting its profits losses. I've had my Athlon for a year, changed a lot, XP still runs fine and hasn't bitched.
That's fine, however, I build a lot of RAIDS, shange a lot of hardware for testing and dev, and basically from my undersatnding of XP, you need to phone MS after X number of component changes.
Pain I don't need.
Windows is just as insecure as any desktop OS. I've seen many OS X security updates. Desktop OSes are worst for security if you don't know how to fully utilize the OS security components (i.e. NT Security Model, UNIX security model).
Windows and MS have a security record I'll leave to the press to explain. FreeBSD is a damn secure building block, and the OSX updates make me happy, because they are quick, and proactive.
MS is reactive...only after someone disobeys their security through obscurity model.
IIS has holes everywhere (new one baked fresh daily), while Apache has had...ummm...one.
If you want UNIX in Windows. Get cygwin.
I don't. I want UNIX.
Very wrong. Microsoft has a shared-source (other name for open source) .NET VM, compiler, etc. for BSD called ROTOR. It's just as good as the commercial counterpart for Windows, which is free. Hell, ROTOR works on Windows if you want to have ROTOR on Windows. Besides, Mono is GPL'ed open source implementation of Microsoft.NET.
JScript is not only for IE. It's used in scripting. JScript.NET isn't for IE anyways. It's a scripting language that can be compiled into .NET MSIL CLR.
C# is a ECMA standard. Java isn't. It isn't bad C++. It isn't even C++. It's Microsoft's version of SUN's Java with quite some differences from Java. C# isn't Java per se, but very similar. C# is actually a very elegant language. It just works.
You're correct about C# (do you call it c sharp, c pound, c hash, or c octothorpe (http://theregister.co.uk/content/archive/26108.html) ). I brain farted there. I was thinking of something else, and can't find the link, so I'll let it be.
Anyway, regardless of MS trying, perhaps well, to open the .net framework, I still know hundreds of network application builders, and maybe 5 are really excited about .net. Additionally, in my application service provider experience, ASP/COM/IIS caused more trouble than Java servlets on Solaris, and again, scaled like dookie.
Anyway, I'm happy in JavaLand, and you seem happy in the .net, so we can close that argument here, unless, of course, you'd like to close.
Microsoft also encourages standards with XML Web Services. It's an open standard. There's a XML Web Service implementation for Java by SUN. It will play friendly with Microsoft.NET.
Good. Now if only they could encourage compliant html...
COM/ASP scalability is just as bad as PHP scalability. Microsoft.NET solves this with ASP.NET which is far much more powerful and scalable.
I've seen more ways to create memory leaks with ASP/IIS/COM than anywhere ever before. I've seen a PowerEdge serving 5 QA testers slow to a full and complete stop.
I'm glad to hear that this is improving.
I don't care if its bloody UNIX your granny sends emails from, she still doesn't know and therefore doesn't take full advantage of UNIX. Marshmellow? 98 Mode? Microsoft has dumped 9x and moved on with NT/2k/XP.
My opinion is based solely on the number of annoying relatives who I have to support over the phone!
Marshmellow and 98 refer to the two XP themes, also commonly referred to as Fisher Price and Classic.
Also, look at the UI, HID, and Usability Departments of your major OS vendors. Many OS vendors and software developers hire FROM Apple. Wonder why that is....?
At the end of the day, if I'm going to look at it 40+ hours a week, I appreciate it looking good.
Why not simply respond to the request of action immediately then move on. Since when would it freeze the OS? Never happened to me. You don't have to answer to continue. Windows NT/2k/XP uses protected memory, just like Mac OS X. In fact, Windows had it long before Mac OS X even came out the public.
'Cause I multitask. I hit 'Empty Recycle Bin', and I start doing things. If I'm tossing an enormous old source tree, it takes the computer a few seconds to catch up. I'm in a different window. I can now do nothing until I drill back down and close that alert. Try it, you'll see what I mean.
This is the one bothering me right now, but there are many others.
Well... I haven't come across anything counter-intuitive or time wasting in XP. It's all opinonated.
As I said, I don't use XP, and I'm glad it is improving. However, I do find 2k clunky and counter intuitive.
Mac is better vs. PC again. Remember. PC isn't Windows. Besides, the faster speed can help by increasing productivity by making things seem extremely responsive.
Thanks for semantic shout out number 2. I will go on the record now, and let y'allses (plural of y'all) know that by PC I mean Windows on x86. When I want to talk about other OSes on x86, I'll reference them by name.
The faster speed does help combat the clunk.
Wow, you need that much to be productive under Mac OS X? Jeez.
When I'm doing everything I can do, and letting the computer do everything it can do, it can't hurt. How much RAM does Windows want to burn a cd, while watching a QT stream, while editing text, while compiling, with people banging on your Apache server, and iSyncing your iPod, as well as browsing, with a cron job running, while your other optical drive is ripping MP3s?
In my experience, Windows used to beat a Mac senseless in multi tasking, and now the reverse is true...could be me just doing too much though...
Then you're doing something wrong. Try out Windows XP. Very destructive BSODs, like what? I've only had one about win32k.sys, but that was a memory corruption issue that I quickly solved. Windows XP is absolutely STABLE here.
Having gone a few months without one (feverishly knock on wooden desk), I don't know off the top of my head what they are. However, I know at least 4 times in 12 months I've had my Win2k partition go south...way south.
I know my Win2k serial by heart (looks down in shame).
Again, I'm responding based on things I've experienced and things I've read, and sometimes (C#) something gets replaced inthe memory array. If you're happy where you are, run with it, but don't expect me not to defend my platform of (informed) choice here at macrumors.com.
Uh. Windows does have the support. I can play MP3s in Windows Media Player. I can write programs using the API to play MP3s, WMA, ASF, whatever. Maybe you mean to encode? Sure, Microsoft didn't want to pay Fraunhofer for the license, since they have their own audio format that works just fine.
Out of the box Win2k does not map mp3 files to an application.
Product activation. Just sends info on computer--no personal info. One click. No big deal. Microsoft is just protecting its profits losses. I've had my Athlon for a year, changed a lot, XP still runs fine and hasn't bitched.
That's fine, however, I build a lot of RAIDS, shange a lot of hardware for testing and dev, and basically from my undersatnding of XP, you need to phone MS after X number of component changes.
Pain I don't need.
Windows is just as insecure as any desktop OS. I've seen many OS X security updates. Desktop OSes are worst for security if you don't know how to fully utilize the OS security components (i.e. NT Security Model, UNIX security model).
Windows and MS have a security record I'll leave to the press to explain. FreeBSD is a damn secure building block, and the OSX updates make me happy, because they are quick, and proactive.
MS is reactive...only after someone disobeys their security through obscurity model.
IIS has holes everywhere (new one baked fresh daily), while Apache has had...ummm...one.
If you want UNIX in Windows. Get cygwin.
I don't. I want UNIX.
Very wrong. Microsoft has a shared-source (other name for open source) .NET VM, compiler, etc. for BSD called ROTOR. It's just as good as the commercial counterpart for Windows, which is free. Hell, ROTOR works on Windows if you want to have ROTOR on Windows. Besides, Mono is GPL'ed open source implementation of Microsoft.NET.
JScript is not only for IE. It's used in scripting. JScript.NET isn't for IE anyways. It's a scripting language that can be compiled into .NET MSIL CLR.
C# is a ECMA standard. Java isn't. It isn't bad C++. It isn't even C++. It's Microsoft's version of SUN's Java with quite some differences from Java. C# isn't Java per se, but very similar. C# is actually a very elegant language. It just works.
You're correct about C# (do you call it c sharp, c pound, c hash, or c octothorpe (http://theregister.co.uk/content/archive/26108.html) ). I brain farted there. I was thinking of something else, and can't find the link, so I'll let it be.
Anyway, regardless of MS trying, perhaps well, to open the .net framework, I still know hundreds of network application builders, and maybe 5 are really excited about .net. Additionally, in my application service provider experience, ASP/COM/IIS caused more trouble than Java servlets on Solaris, and again, scaled like dookie.
Anyway, I'm happy in JavaLand, and you seem happy in the .net, so we can close that argument here, unless, of course, you'd like to close.
Microsoft also encourages standards with XML Web Services. It's an open standard. There's a XML Web Service implementation for Java by SUN. It will play friendly with Microsoft.NET.
Good. Now if only they could encourage compliant html...
COM/ASP scalability is just as bad as PHP scalability. Microsoft.NET solves this with ASP.NET which is far much more powerful and scalable.
I've seen more ways to create memory leaks with ASP/IIS/COM than anywhere ever before. I've seen a PowerEdge serving 5 QA testers slow to a full and complete stop.
I'm glad to hear that this is improving.
I don't care if its bloody UNIX your granny sends emails from, she still doesn't know and therefore doesn't take full advantage of UNIX. Marshmellow? 98 Mode? Microsoft has dumped 9x and moved on with NT/2k/XP.
My opinion is based solely on the number of annoying relatives who I have to support over the phone!
Marshmellow and 98 refer to the two XP themes, also commonly referred to as Fisher Price and Classic.
Also, look at the UI, HID, and Usability Departments of your major OS vendors. Many OS vendors and software developers hire FROM Apple. Wonder why that is....?
At the end of the day, if I'm going to look at it 40+ hours a week, I appreciate it looking good.
Why not simply respond to the request of action immediately then move on. Since when would it freeze the OS? Never happened to me. You don't have to answer to continue. Windows NT/2k/XP uses protected memory, just like Mac OS X. In fact, Windows had it long before Mac OS X even came out the public.
'Cause I multitask. I hit 'Empty Recycle Bin', and I start doing things. If I'm tossing an enormous old source tree, it takes the computer a few seconds to catch up. I'm in a different window. I can now do nothing until I drill back down and close that alert. Try it, you'll see what I mean.
This is the one bothering me right now, but there are many others.
Well... I haven't come across anything counter-intuitive or time wasting in XP. It's all opinonated.
As I said, I don't use XP, and I'm glad it is improving. However, I do find 2k clunky and counter intuitive.
Mac is better vs. PC again. Remember. PC isn't Windows. Besides, the faster speed can help by increasing productivity by making things seem extremely responsive.
Thanks for semantic shout out number 2. I will go on the record now, and let y'allses (plural of y'all) know that by PC I mean Windows on x86. When I want to talk about other OSes on x86, I'll reference them by name.
The faster speed does help combat the clunk.
Wow, you need that much to be productive under Mac OS X? Jeez.
When I'm doing everything I can do, and letting the computer do everything it can do, it can't hurt. How much RAM does Windows want to burn a cd, while watching a QT stream, while editing text, while compiling, with people banging on your Apache server, and iSyncing your iPod, as well as browsing, with a cron job running, while your other optical drive is ripping MP3s?
In my experience, Windows used to beat a Mac senseless in multi tasking, and now the reverse is true...could be me just doing too much though...
Then you're doing something wrong. Try out Windows XP. Very destructive BSODs, like what? I've only had one about win32k.sys, but that was a memory corruption issue that I quickly solved. Windows XP is absolutely STABLE here.
Having gone a few months without one (feverishly knock on wooden desk), I don't know off the top of my head what they are. However, I know at least 4 times in 12 months I've had my Win2k partition go south...way south.
I know my Win2k serial by heart (looks down in shame).
Again, I'm responding based on things I've experienced and things I've read, and sometimes (C#) something gets replaced inthe memory array. If you're happy where you are, run with it, but don't expect me not to defend my platform of (informed) choice here at macrumors.com.
Retrograffica
Jan 11, 04:12 PM
Spoilsport, I thought we we're having a 'crazy' prediction discussion
Like the intoduction of an iToaster (like the one off Red Dwarf) maybe an iOxygen device so we don't have to worry about pollution
Like the intoduction of an iToaster (like the one off Red Dwarf) maybe an iOxygen device so we don't have to worry about pollution
Tommyg117
Aug 2, 09:25 PM
bad news. I better tell my girlfriend. How many macbooks does this affect? All of them?
KingYaba
Apr 2, 09:25 PM
LOL, who do you think the NATO military is? France? Italy? LMAO, don't make me laugh! Massive military spending cuts and downsizing was the first thing Europe did during their financial downturn. They couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. The US Military -is- the NATO military. And if you think that we won't send ground troops, you haven't been paying any attention.
It's worth mentioning that my comment is about five days old. Some things have changed like proposals to arm the Libyan rebels and stepped-up attacks on Libyan forces. The whole point of the no-fly zone is to limit the carnage like Lord B (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12314801&postcount=29) said in another thread. And that's where I draw the line. If you have a better plan I would like to read it. But judging from your illegal war comment I guess you're only interested in partisanship.
And if you think that we won't send ground troops, you haven't been paying any attention.
I haven't? :rolleyes: Obama seemed pretty clear in one of his latest speeches that he won't send troops on the ground. If he does I'll call him out and condemn it. It's a stupid idea, also, to arm the rebels. I hope we don't do that.
It's worth mentioning that my comment is about five days old. Some things have changed like proposals to arm the Libyan rebels and stepped-up attacks on Libyan forces. The whole point of the no-fly zone is to limit the carnage like Lord B (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12314801&postcount=29) said in another thread. And that's where I draw the line. If you have a better plan I would like to read it. But judging from your illegal war comment I guess you're only interested in partisanship.
And if you think that we won't send ground troops, you haven't been paying any attention.
I haven't? :rolleyes: Obama seemed pretty clear in one of his latest speeches that he won't send troops on the ground. If he does I'll call him out and condemn it. It's a stupid idea, also, to arm the rebels. I hope we don't do that.
RHVC59
Mar 7, 11:18 PM
A shot from last night...
An intrepid group of Volunteers form our little town hiked up 3001 feet up to to the top of Deer Mountain, that overlooks our sea side town with fireworks and put on quite a show for the town. Thanks
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5505039121_b0cc4d0105_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhvc59/5505039121/lightbox/)
NIKON D80
28.0-300.0 mm f/3.5-5.6
300.0mm (35mm equivalent: 450mm)
f/10.0
5.000 sec
ISO 200
Check Flicker for more shots of Deer Mountain both in the day time and more of the Fireworks :)
An intrepid group of Volunteers form our little town hiked up 3001 feet up to to the top of Deer Mountain, that overlooks our sea side town with fireworks and put on quite a show for the town. Thanks
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5505039121_b0cc4d0105_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhvc59/5505039121/lightbox/)
NIKON D80
28.0-300.0 mm f/3.5-5.6
300.0mm (35mm equivalent: 450mm)
f/10.0
5.000 sec
ISO 200
Check Flicker for more shots of Deer Mountain both in the day time and more of the Fireworks :)
racketeer71
Oct 13, 12:04 PM
Then, technically you are using his setup pics without his permission.
The least you should do is put the original poster's name as credit.
Either you're joking.
Or you're the most tight person I've encountered.
The least you should do is put the original poster's name as credit.
Either you're joking.
Or you're the most tight person I've encountered.
KnightWRX
Mar 29, 05:55 AM
Maybe they will feature the Macbook Air Revision this year ;)
The Macbook Air got an event presentation in Octobre, it's not getting another event spot for what will be a spec bump. It's getting a silent update next.
Mac hardware has not really gotten any keynote time in the last few years. It's mostly been silent updates, even the Mac Mini redesign just showed up one morning.
So these guys pay $1000 to NOT see a keynote??
I'd wager the people paying 1000$ for WWDC don't do it for the keynote (hint, developers going to developer workshops). The keynote is just icing.
The Macbook Air got an event presentation in Octobre, it's not getting another event spot for what will be a spec bump. It's getting a silent update next.
Mac hardware has not really gotten any keynote time in the last few years. It's mostly been silent updates, even the Mac Mini redesign just showed up one morning.
So these guys pay $1000 to NOT see a keynote??
I'd wager the people paying 1000$ for WWDC don't do it for the keynote (hint, developers going to developer workshops). The keynote is just icing.
BWhaler
Sep 12, 03:31 PM
Fantastic upgrade for the nano.
I will be buying one once I replace my laptop (running out of hard disk space so I had to back-up and remove my music from the laptop.)
What a great event across the board.
I will be buying one once I replace my laptop (running out of hard disk space so I had to back-up and remove my music from the laptop.)
What a great event across the board.
Darkroom
Nov 2, 07:51 PM
Users don't care about flash, they care about websites. Some site developers seem to care more about Flash than about their users. Therefore, we get crappy Flash "websites" that don't work for the users. Who is at fault here? The developer.
your argument is subjective. while i agree with you that some flash sites can be a bit heavy, there are a lot that work very well. some even have quicker load time that static HTML/Javascript/CSS/Images. here's a site i've developed earlier this year which i like to believe is fairly light weight (http://www.deskguise.com) (click the character's nose!), it allows for back/forward, deep linking and SEO functionality, while including animations that are currently not possible with HTML/CSS.
HTML/CSS will not compete with flash in the future. however, WebGL certainly will. WebGL is going to be great!
It's the developer's job to use technologies that will be future-proof and well, not suck.
technologies change all the time and the best developers learn how to adapt to the constant change using the best production tools they can. so while (as i mentioned) WebGL will give adobe a run for their money, it's unlikely that adobe will simply quit development for flash, which by the way has been around since the mid 90s. flash will only become more advanced.
your argument is subjective. while i agree with you that some flash sites can be a bit heavy, there are a lot that work very well. some even have quicker load time that static HTML/Javascript/CSS/Images. here's a site i've developed earlier this year which i like to believe is fairly light weight (http://www.deskguise.com) (click the character's nose!), it allows for back/forward, deep linking and SEO functionality, while including animations that are currently not possible with HTML/CSS.
HTML/CSS will not compete with flash in the future. however, WebGL certainly will. WebGL is going to be great!
It's the developer's job to use technologies that will be future-proof and well, not suck.
technologies change all the time and the best developers learn how to adapt to the constant change using the best production tools they can. so while (as i mentioned) WebGL will give adobe a run for their money, it's unlikely that adobe will simply quit development for flash, which by the way has been around since the mid 90s. flash will only become more advanced.
gnasher729
Apr 14, 12:47 PM
I can see Apple moving into third over the next two years.
That would be totally irrelevant.
Except for Apple, they all build the same old PCs. Because they all build the same product, sales can move from one company to another company very, very quickly, as we can see from the enormous growth followed by a very quick fall of Acer. Apple has 9.3%, so the rest has 90.7%. It would be possible with these numbers to have nine companies selling more than Apple. If Apple doubles their share to 18.6%, you still could have four companies selling more than Apple.
Apple's position in this chart doesn't matter one bit; not even the market share really matters; the thing that matters is how many Macs are sold. If HP takes a few sales away from Toshiba, Apple comes third. But if Acer takes a few sales away from HP instead, Apple comes fifth. What does it matter? (BTW. The IDC report at macobserver shows Apple fourth, with Acer having lost a lot more and coming fifth, not third).
The simple fact is, Apple is selling tons of product and will not change their pricing methodology to be competitive (iOS devices aside). I just scratch my head when all the Apple-ites on MR jump down my throat to defend Apple's pricing *Yes Sir may I have another.
If Apple is selling tons of products, in a market with plenty of competitors, how can they be not competitive? 9.3% of buyers in the USA decided that for their money, a Mac is the best computer they can find.
That would be totally irrelevant.
Except for Apple, they all build the same old PCs. Because they all build the same product, sales can move from one company to another company very, very quickly, as we can see from the enormous growth followed by a very quick fall of Acer. Apple has 9.3%, so the rest has 90.7%. It would be possible with these numbers to have nine companies selling more than Apple. If Apple doubles their share to 18.6%, you still could have four companies selling more than Apple.
Apple's position in this chart doesn't matter one bit; not even the market share really matters; the thing that matters is how many Macs are sold. If HP takes a few sales away from Toshiba, Apple comes third. But if Acer takes a few sales away from HP instead, Apple comes fifth. What does it matter? (BTW. The IDC report at macobserver shows Apple fourth, with Acer having lost a lot more and coming fifth, not third).
The simple fact is, Apple is selling tons of product and will not change their pricing methodology to be competitive (iOS devices aside). I just scratch my head when all the Apple-ites on MR jump down my throat to defend Apple's pricing *Yes Sir may I have another.
If Apple is selling tons of products, in a market with plenty of competitors, how can they be not competitive? 9.3% of buyers in the USA decided that for their money, a Mac is the best computer they can find.
maknik
Nov 12, 02:14 PM
Paraphrasing: I don't like being told what I can and can't do. :rolleyes:
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, liberalism, libertarianism... A pretty good definition, really.
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, liberalism, libertarianism... A pretty good definition, really.
Queso
Sep 12, 02:42 PM
I've got a 3-hour train journey both Saturday and Sunday, so could do with a new iPod. Did the keynote mention whether these are in the Apple retail stores immediately?
Blue Velvet
Mar 29, 01:28 PM
Tapped digs up the transcript from the second presidential debate:
BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.
Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.
What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?
OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.
If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?
If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.
So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.
OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.
But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.
Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/second-presidential-debate.html
My emphasis. No one can say he's not acting consistently with this statement, made live in front of approx 50-60 million people, just weeks before everyone went to the polls.
BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.
Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.
What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?
OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.
If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?
If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.
So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.
OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.
But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.
Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/second-presidential-debate.html
My emphasis. No one can say he's not acting consistently with this statement, made live in front of approx 50-60 million people, just weeks before everyone went to the polls.
Leoff
Nov 27, 11:58 AM
Personally I see this as a big deal for a reason not many others have mentioned: bringing in the holdouts.
The Beatles are the big one of course, but the others (Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, etc.) are still unsure about the whole digital music thing. If the biggest hold-out finally folds and goes for sale on-line, others will follow.
(and yes, I'm not exactly sure if the Rolling Stones or Led Zepplin are "holdouts", but they're not on iTunes or anywhere else that I can see... surely there are others?)
The Beatles are the big one of course, but the others (Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, etc.) are still unsure about the whole digital music thing. If the biggest hold-out finally folds and goes for sale on-line, others will follow.
(and yes, I'm not exactly sure if the Rolling Stones or Led Zepplin are "holdouts", but they're not on iTunes or anywhere else that I can see... surely there are others?)
No comments:
Post a Comment