Andras5soul
Apr 25, 08:36 AM
Very simple.
Longer Battery Life.
No Graphics Performance Drop
15 Inch Screen (I'm a dreamer...)
Longer Battery Life.
No Graphics Performance Drop
15 Inch Screen (I'm a dreamer...)
wtfk
Nov 14, 08:08 PM
They were for it before they were against it. Seems I've heard that somewhere before.
ckd
Jun 11, 10:14 AM
disagree with you in England iphone is sell by 5 companies
All of them selling the same model, just with different SIM cards. The hardware itself isn't any different.
All of them selling the same model, just with different SIM cards. The hardware itself isn't any different.
MacCoaster
Oct 2, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by ooartist
To squash some WinTel people in this forum/post trying to say Windows scales better than UNIX.
I never said it scaled better. In fact, I said the opposite.
However, the fact that Mac OS X's kernel is *NOT* BSD, but Mach remains. Mach is a microkernel and a freaking good one, but Mach microkernels that OS X uses has poor task switching; I'm not sure if the Mach microkernels in OS X is based on GNU/Mach (based off CMU's Mach) or the actual Mach microkernel from Carnegie-Mellon. So some of the scalability of UNIX is lost through this. But trust me, UNIX scales way beyond Windows. I've said Windows isn't for computers with more than 32 processors--that's what UNIX is for--pure science--no one needs the crap from Mac OS X and Windows to do science and mathematics research. Real men use UNIX on 8192-way systems. :) :D :)
To squash some WinTel people in this forum/post trying to say Windows scales better than UNIX.
I never said it scaled better. In fact, I said the opposite.
However, the fact that Mac OS X's kernel is *NOT* BSD, but Mach remains. Mach is a microkernel and a freaking good one, but Mach microkernels that OS X uses has poor task switching; I'm not sure if the Mach microkernels in OS X is based on GNU/Mach (based off CMU's Mach) or the actual Mach microkernel from Carnegie-Mellon. So some of the scalability of UNIX is lost through this. But trust me, UNIX scales way beyond Windows. I've said Windows isn't for computers with more than 32 processors--that's what UNIX is for--pure science--no one needs the crap from Mac OS X and Windows to do science and mathematics research. Real men use UNIX on 8192-way systems. :) :D :)
more...
appleguy123
Mar 26, 05:15 PM
Steve: See this hands? I could kill you with my bare hands right here!!!
Eric: uh huh..
Those hands hold the new iPhone. http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-claims-new-iphone-only-visible-to-most-loyal,2772/
Eric: uh huh..
Those hands hold the new iPhone. http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-claims-new-iphone-only-visible-to-most-loyal,2772/
ejfontenot
Mar 9, 02:57 PM
Stonebriar is on my way home. I work on Preston, live off Preston. See the SB folks about 415!
more...
rami.g
Apr 19, 04:42 PM
Did anyone noticed while the Safari browser, the "CANCEL" button moved to the title of the page, and the address bar was stretched across the screen??
Telecacher
Aug 19, 05:12 PM
Wasn't working earlier, but just started working here in Los Angeles.
more...
kingdonk
Feb 28, 07:37 PM
more
granex
Oct 9, 04:03 PM
Just what can Target say? "If you allow Apple do do something that might cut into out DVD sales we will intentionally sell fewer DVD" Kind of like holding a gun to your head threatening to shoot.
All we need now is the Target chairman slowly driving around Cupertino in a white Bronco with 200 police cars tailing him.
All we need now is the Target chairman slowly driving around Cupertino in a white Bronco with 200 police cars tailing him.
more...
jvmxtra
Apr 24, 03:25 PM
b
a
c
k
l
i
t
k
e
y
b
o
a
r
d
a
c
k
l
i
t
k
e
y
b
o
a
r
d
Warbrain
Apr 5, 09:13 AM
Maybe you have really abnormally large fingers! :D
A full-hand pinch isn't that hard to do on an iPhone/iPod Touch
Try it. The positioning isn't comfortable for anyone.
I'd argue that you'd see Apple lose a large number of users if they went that route.
A full-hand pinch isn't that hard to do on an iPhone/iPod Touch
Try it. The positioning isn't comfortable for anyone.
I'd argue that you'd see Apple lose a large number of users if they went that route.
more...
shawnce
Sep 27, 12:04 PM
A developer friend of mine tried to download the previous dev release for my system (iMac G5), but it wouldn't install right for some reason. It would hang on restart. ...that developer friend of yours is breaking his agreement with Apple and he should stop.
bretm
Apr 16, 03:03 PM
I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.
However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.
Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.
On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.
Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.
However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.
Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.
On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.
Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.
more...
res1233
Apr 5, 11:00 AM
The point is that even cheap dumb-phones don't require a case to get better reception.
The iPhone may be the best smartphone overall, but it has a flaw when it comes to the most basic feature on a phone.
You are overstating it, just as the media had. Nobody who pays that much for a phone and values their money is going to walk around with a glass phone that is easy to break without a case. I probably should not have brought it up, but the point is that people will use cases for other reasons besides the reception. The case is required, not because of the reception, but because the phone is expensive. How someone will argue with that I don't know... I'm sure someone will figure out a way. ;) Also, the reception issue is only an issue in low-signal areas. But maybe you forgot that? idk...
The iPhone may be the best smartphone overall, but it has a flaw when it comes to the most basic feature on a phone.
You are overstating it, just as the media had. Nobody who pays that much for a phone and values their money is going to walk around with a glass phone that is easy to break without a case. I probably should not have brought it up, but the point is that people will use cases for other reasons besides the reception. The case is required, not because of the reception, but because the phone is expensive. How someone will argue with that I don't know... I'm sure someone will figure out a way. ;) Also, the reception issue is only an issue in low-signal areas. But maybe you forgot that? idk...
acarhart
Sep 20, 06:36 AM
My Mac Pro was having trouble finding my Mac OS X startup partition. I had to hold down the option key each time to select the startup disk. (I'm not using Boot Camp.)
Neither update showed up in Software Update, so I downloaded them both from Apple's website.
The EFI firmware update installed fine (on the second try), and now my computer boots up properly. So I can confirm that this update fixes problems that aren't related to Boot Camp.
The SMC firmware was already up-to-date on my Mac Pro (ordered last week).
Neither update showed up in Software Update, so I downloaded them both from Apple's website.
The EFI firmware update installed fine (on the second try), and now my computer boots up properly. So I can confirm that this update fixes problems that aren't related to Boot Camp.
The SMC firmware was already up-to-date on my Mac Pro (ordered last week).
more...
c2edgerton
Oct 9, 04:04 PM
Maybe it's just me, (and maybe this has been said before) but when I first got my "video capable" iPod, I was downloading music videos left and right. Then as soon as TV shows became available I got hooked on "Lost", "Battlestar Galactica" and more...but I quickly found out that the quality was not that great...
I still ended up buying the DVD's of the shows that I really liked, and for those movies that I want on my iPod (for travel purposes) I simply convert them to iPod format, the quality is far better than anything you can download.
Downloading may be convenient, but I will still run to the store for a hardcopy.
And I agree with some earlier comments, once the HD/Blu-Ray war is over and the dust settles, I will begin rebuilding my video library with the winning format, because I can't imagine (yet) trying to download those files.
I still ended up buying the DVD's of the shows that I really liked, and for those movies that I want on my iPod (for travel purposes) I simply convert them to iPod format, the quality is far better than anything you can download.
Downloading may be convenient, but I will still run to the store for a hardcopy.
And I agree with some earlier comments, once the HD/Blu-Ray war is over and the dust settles, I will begin rebuilding my video library with the winning format, because I can't imagine (yet) trying to download those files.
Popeye206
Apr 21, 01:29 PM
Are they adding some decent controls though?
Yeah... a slide out Joy stick! :rolleyes:
Yeah... a slide out Joy stick! :rolleyes:
Rt&Dzine
Apr 8, 10:04 PM
It appears that a deal has been made.
jwong3854
Mar 10, 11:04 PM
We got Apple store, bestbuy, target, At&T store and Walmart within 2 miles of stonebriar
Still undecided on whether to go to the Apple Store or BB...
Either way will probably head over to Stonebriar since I don't think there's a BB near Willow bend....
Still undecided on whether to go to the Apple Store or BB...
Either way will probably head over to Stonebriar since I don't think there's a BB near Willow bend....
big
Sep 13, 10:25 PM
the double post is appreciated, that was the first time I have chuckled all day....
AppleMc
Mar 11, 09:06 AM
Ugh, doesn't look good for me. All because I have to work for ONE HOUR today, and it just happens to be from 2:30-3:30.
kironin
Nov 8, 02:56 PM
No spy chips, thank you.
http://spychips.com
I envision a market for some sort of faraday cage in an iPhone carrying case though grounding it maybe a challenge.
After-seller small business opportunity, become a chip remover or disabler perhaps.
http://spychips.com
I envision a market for some sort of faraday cage in an iPhone carrying case though grounding it maybe a challenge.
After-seller small business opportunity, become a chip remover or disabler perhaps.
Abulia
Sep 20, 02:32 PM
I've read the various comments about problems with the updates with RAID 0. Can anyone confirm if the update goes ok on RAID 1? I would think it would since from a boot point of view they might as well be individual disks.
I would say it still wouldn't work, as the OS X RAID implementation is software RAID. Hence, OS X has to boot to get the RAID array working.
In the case of RAID 1 if it did work it might break the mirror (no big deal).
Give it a shot. Worse case it won't work; shouldn't affect your data at all.
I would say it still wouldn't work, as the OS X RAID implementation is software RAID. Hence, OS X has to boot to get the RAID array working.
In the case of RAID 1 if it did work it might break the mirror (no big deal).
Give it a shot. Worse case it won't work; shouldn't affect your data at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment