kidtwist
Sep 28, 10:24 AM
Luckily none of you have a Mac Pro with build 8K1079. It is complete *****. Build 8K1079 is horrible, hell-half of System Preferences doesn't work, Rosetta can't keep PPC apps open, can't plug in some USB devices, can't restart without holding power button down, the curtain of death happens.....a lot. So many problems with build 8K1079 that we don't/can't use it at work here.
I have a Mac Pro with that build. I've had no serious problems. The only odd thing is that sometimes when I when I go into date/time preferences dialog and try to change something in there the color wheel spins for a couple of minutes and then the controls in there don't work right. All the other system preferences appear to work normally. I've had no other problems. Even iTunes 7 works fine.
Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to an update. OS upgrades are always cool.
I have a Mac Pro with that build. I've had no serious problems. The only odd thing is that sometimes when I when I go into date/time preferences dialog and try to change something in there the color wheel spins for a couple of minutes and then the controls in there don't work right. All the other system preferences appear to work normally. I've had no other problems. Even iTunes 7 works fine.
Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to an update. OS upgrades are always cool.
Spanky Deluxe
Oct 27, 09:58 AM
Several people I know there *didn't* get the student discount. Its my understanding now that Apple don't offer the educational discount in stores on software but only on hardware and that they don't offer the HE discount at all in stores.
Lyra, you're right about the apparel store, if they'd done that I'd have spent some more moneys for sure!! There were several hot girls that asked what we were doing too, a pair of very nice girls came and chatted to us for a while and then convinced the door staff to let them buy an iPod Touch at the front door. They didn't judge us too much for being there. Quite a few people came up and asked us what we were queueing for and upon hearing what it was about, pulled a disgusted face and walked off. :(
Lyra, you're right about the apparel store, if they'd done that I'd have spent some more moneys for sure!! There were several hot girls that asked what we were doing too, a pair of very nice girls came and chatted to us for a while and then convinced the door staff to let them buy an iPod Touch at the front door. They didn't judge us too much for being there. Quite a few people came up and asked us what we were queueing for and upon hearing what it was about, pulled a disgusted face and walked off. :(
coder12
Apr 25, 03:14 PM
Amazon is known to post a lot of wrong things in the past, (iWork '11 anyone?) but this seems pretty legit. I burned my install to a DVD to use it, and it worked just fine. I'd assume that this is the last upgrade on a DVD though. OTA upgrades FTW.
.jpg "long haircuts for girls.")
rogerh
Mar 11, 02:09 PM
I think I'm gonna goto the bestbuy in irving off 183 by the mall.
more...
tvguru
Sep 25, 10:47 AM
waaaaaaah Apple only anounced a photo editing program and a photography centered event. I am selling my macbook and G5 this is total BS!!!!!!
lol, you go girl! :p
lol, you go girl! :p
Bodhi395
Mar 26, 03:22 PM
He rich, yet he wears the same thing every day?
He's very into simplicity and minimalism, just look at the way apple products are designed. I think its a conscious choice to wear a simple black turtleneck and jeans, even though he could easily afford any clothes he wanted.
He's very into simplicity and minimalism, just look at the way apple products are designed. I think its a conscious choice to wear a simple black turtleneck and jeans, even though he could easily afford any clothes he wanted.
more...
blackpeter
Sep 19, 03:29 PM
nice...
bobber205
Apr 7, 10:19 PM
Or just, uh.... not smart?
Trying to kill planned parenthood = less birth control available = more abortions.
That's just common sense. I know they're all about abstinence being the best option but come on!
It's not the only option. Jees. :rolleyes:
How dumb can a party/movement be? Are they just refusing to think more than the one superficially thin layer of preventing Planned Parenthood providing abortions? Is that what they think PP just does?
I'm so confused.
Trying to kill planned parenthood = less birth control available = more abortions.
That's just common sense. I know they're all about abstinence being the best option but come on!
It's not the only option. Jees. :rolleyes:
How dumb can a party/movement be? Are they just refusing to think more than the one superficially thin layer of preventing Planned Parenthood providing abortions? Is that what they think PP just does?
I'm so confused.
more...
whooleytoo
Sep 27, 05:58 AM
You're pretty close to nailing it there - in truth, they're still sheep and zealots, terms that imply a lack of ability to think for oneself and an over-the-top reaction when someone else makes up, or changes, their mind for them. It's the same morons, they just rush to extremes no matter what.
Woah, woah, woah.
First of all, the "cease and desist" letter wasn't posted here until the second page of the thread, hence all we had to go on was the other sites' reports. (And even I missed that one post until just now).
And even having read that letter, I'm still opposed to Apple's moves and intentions here. They're still trying to trademark the word "Pod", which I think is utterly farcical.
Never mind the delicious irony in Apple objecting to the phonetic similarity between iPod and MyPodder, when iPod was obviously chosen to leverage the phonetic similarity with a familiar word ("tripod") - could MyPodder not argue they were doing likewise? Never mind the fact that the Apple name was 'borrowed' from another company, and was the name of one of its products ("Classic") was taken verbatim from another company.
Woah, woah, woah.
First of all, the "cease and desist" letter wasn't posted here until the second page of the thread, hence all we had to go on was the other sites' reports. (And even I missed that one post until just now).
And even having read that letter, I'm still opposed to Apple's moves and intentions here. They're still trying to trademark the word "Pod", which I think is utterly farcical.
Never mind the delicious irony in Apple objecting to the phonetic similarity between iPod and MyPodder, when iPod was obviously chosen to leverage the phonetic similarity with a familiar word ("tripod") - could MyPodder not argue they were doing likewise? Never mind the fact that the Apple name was 'borrowed' from another company, and was the name of one of its products ("Classic") was taken verbatim from another company.
squeeks
May 2, 10:09 PM
Unfortunately the war will not change much as the more recent attack attempts (christmas day shoe bomber, Fort Hood attacks) have come from or been inspired by cells in Yemen (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/25/politics/washingtonpost/main6803849.shtml) commanded by Bin Laden's second in command...
more...
thatisme
Mar 29, 08:20 AM
Yup. So the EF-s lens is providing a field of view of 16-35.2mm in full-frame, 35mm equivalent. So is effected by the 1.6 crop. Which is what I've been saying all along.
Yep. so you are now using the term Equivalent, not actual, which is not what you have been arguing, but I have.... Actual focal length is 10-22 in EFS. Effective in 35mm terms is 16-32mm.
OK. So, with your logic, take that Equivalent in Full Frame EF 16-35.2mm lens and put it back on your 7D, and your FOV changes again, and your Image changes. It will be using the center of the lens's elements, in effect "cropping" your image tighter, which now gives you an effective focal length of 56.32 mm on the long end, not the 22mm as your argument would dictate.
As stated before, you are comparing Apples to Oranges. You have to have a standard frame of reference which is a 35mm sensor size.
Yep. so you are now using the term Equivalent, not actual, which is not what you have been arguing, but I have.... Actual focal length is 10-22 in EFS. Effective in 35mm terms is 16-32mm.
OK. So, with your logic, take that Equivalent in Full Frame EF 16-35.2mm lens and put it back on your 7D, and your FOV changes again, and your Image changes. It will be using the center of the lens's elements, in effect "cropping" your image tighter, which now gives you an effective focal length of 56.32 mm on the long end, not the 22mm as your argument would dictate.
As stated before, you are comparing Apples to Oranges. You have to have a standard frame of reference which is a 35mm sensor size.
KeithPratt
Dec 19, 10:04 AM
I think we can all agree on one thing: music is the real winner here.
more...
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 04:00 PM
I'm sorry for everyone with a PowerPC Mac, but the sooner the PowerPC is a distant memory, the better for the platform.
marksman
Apr 1, 03:48 PM
People are wrong who think Alacarte would boil down to a handful of channels. The opposite would happen as people would not purchase duplicate channels with similar content. They would choose the one they like best and then choose something more narrowly focused in their interest range.
People are confusing ratings on tv with what people would actually pay for to have brought into their home every month. They are not the same thing.
People are confusing ratings on tv with what people would actually pay for to have brought into their home every month. They are not the same thing.
more...
Eidorian
Jun 17, 07:56 PM
I mean your attempted joke about a newer version coming out by Christmas was a poor effort, and that further attempts could be better.What joke?
The older models aren't being produced anymore.
The older models aren't being produced anymore.
NewGenAdam
Apr 12, 06:08 PM
All mah customers is scared of you ... you bein' black and all ... so they'all stand in the other line and make my other checker do all the work.
So's I gots to fire you and hire me more white checkers.
Yeah. Let's bring back those days ... when America was great. :rolleyes:
Haha your golden age?
Really though.
We can choose not to employ someone born stupid because they'd do a worse job so why can we not also choose not to employ somebody born of a particular ethnicity if they'd do a worse job because of it?
To clarify, I don't think we should practise racism. Please never quote me out of context. I'm just amused by the logical inconsistency if we accept that ethnicity may play a part in ability (which it probably doesn't, but it's an interesting thought path to follow): then can we choose against someone for it in the same way we choose against somebody born stupid?
I propose that we should be able to choose who to employ (and everything else) by how well they'd do the job, with one qualification: we cannot choose against them if our reason for doing so would be because discrimination against them would compromise their ability to do a job. Because ethnicity is not an absolute disadvantage; at most it can be argued as a social disadvantage in intolerant, racist countries.
Not having the 'disadvantage by social discrimination' clause would be implicitly condoning society's discrimination in allowing others to act by its harmful consequences.
Sorry if my words fell onto the thread all jumbled. I think this makes some sense.
So's I gots to fire you and hire me more white checkers.
Yeah. Let's bring back those days ... when America was great. :rolleyes:
Haha your golden age?
Really though.
We can choose not to employ someone born stupid because they'd do a worse job so why can we not also choose not to employ somebody born of a particular ethnicity if they'd do a worse job because of it?
To clarify, I don't think we should practise racism. Please never quote me out of context. I'm just amused by the logical inconsistency if we accept that ethnicity may play a part in ability (which it probably doesn't, but it's an interesting thought path to follow): then can we choose against someone for it in the same way we choose against somebody born stupid?
I propose that we should be able to choose who to employ (and everything else) by how well they'd do the job, with one qualification: we cannot choose against them if our reason for doing so would be because discrimination against them would compromise their ability to do a job. Because ethnicity is not an absolute disadvantage; at most it can be argued as a social disadvantage in intolerant, racist countries.
Not having the 'disadvantage by social discrimination' clause would be implicitly condoning society's discrimination in allowing others to act by its harmful consequences.
Sorry if my words fell onto the thread all jumbled. I think this makes some sense.
more...
psycoswimmer
Oct 9, 04:22 PM
Wow. Can't everyone leave Apple alone. ;)
Currently, online movie downloads have no what near the popularity as going out and buying a real DVD has. Greedy Target and Wal-mart. Don't the movie studios see that Target and Wal-mart and other retail stores will still sell DVDs, or they will take a loss?
Currently, online movie downloads have no what near the popularity as going out and buying a real DVD has. Greedy Target and Wal-mart. Don't the movie studios see that Target and Wal-mart and other retail stores will still sell DVDs, or they will take a loss?
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
stormsweeper
Jun 22, 07:28 AM
I'm just wondering *why* Apple is choosing this time to introduce built in SD card readers.
"This time" being last summer, when they started including them in MacBooks?
They don't really need a reason besides pretty much every consumer camera using SD media these days.
"This time" being last summer, when they started including them in MacBooks?
They don't really need a reason besides pretty much every consumer camera using SD media these days.
KnightWRX
Apr 15, 12:56 PM
no you don't, exchange 2003 and later supports push email like blackberries and no need for pop/imap. and it's probably more supported than using zimbra on the iphone.
Are you doing this on purpose ? You have failed to address all the points I've brought up, including the fact that Push based e-mail is not a Exchange only feature.
Look, if you want to debate this, at least give us a good-faith performance. None of this bad-faith arguing that just's going to go on and on for pages, where you ignore most points and just re-hash and imply your older debunked points.
it's relative cost. almost everyone uses exchange. if zimbra wants the market they need to price themselves very low or offer killer features MS doesn't. how do you even back up zimbra since exchange has agents available from every major backup application allowing you to do online backups
Zimbra was simply an example. And yes, it does support the same Full/Incremental backups that Exchange does. In fact, Exchange doesn't even support anything but full EDB backups out of the box, the per-mailbox backups/restores the many different 3rd party solution offers are based around hacks.
Microsoft doesn't officially support mailbox-level backups/restores (I'll admit my knowledge stops at around Exchange 2003 thank god), without first restoring the whole storage group to a "recovery" storage group/server and then using Exmerge.exe all things to restore to the production storage group :
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823176
Thank god Veritas/HP/CA created those agents...
I think I'll move you to ignore now. It's quite apparent to me that you're simply going to try to shove Microsoft stuff down our throats without even knowing about the competition (as is obvious by your constant bashing of Zimbra based on assumptions which have proven false, simply because it was brought up as an example of one of dozens of collaboration suites out there).
Are you doing this on purpose ? You have failed to address all the points I've brought up, including the fact that Push based e-mail is not a Exchange only feature.
Look, if you want to debate this, at least give us a good-faith performance. None of this bad-faith arguing that just's going to go on and on for pages, where you ignore most points and just re-hash and imply your older debunked points.
it's relative cost. almost everyone uses exchange. if zimbra wants the market they need to price themselves very low or offer killer features MS doesn't. how do you even back up zimbra since exchange has agents available from every major backup application allowing you to do online backups
Zimbra was simply an example. And yes, it does support the same Full/Incremental backups that Exchange does. In fact, Exchange doesn't even support anything but full EDB backups out of the box, the per-mailbox backups/restores the many different 3rd party solution offers are based around hacks.
Microsoft doesn't officially support mailbox-level backups/restores (I'll admit my knowledge stops at around Exchange 2003 thank god), without first restoring the whole storage group to a "recovery" storage group/server and then using Exmerge.exe all things to restore to the production storage group :
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823176
Thank god Veritas/HP/CA created those agents...
I think I'll move you to ignore now. It's quite apparent to me that you're simply going to try to shove Microsoft stuff down our throats without even knowing about the competition (as is obvious by your constant bashing of Zimbra based on assumptions which have proven false, simply because it was brought up as an example of one of dozens of collaboration suites out there).
darwen
Oct 9, 08:27 PM
Maybe not for you, but it will for me, and probably a lot of other folks as well.
Once I have a decent method of getting my movies from my computer to my TV (i.e. iTV), and iTunes has more selection, I plan on never buying another DVD again. I'm in the minority here I'm sure, but for how long? How long before digital distribution is the method of choice for your average Joe?
My point is that their (Wal-Mart/Target) concerns are valid, but they're still just whining about it because they're scared of competition. Why isn't Wal-Mart whining and complaining about the Music Store? Oh... That's right, because they have one of their own. :rolleyes:
Ok, point taken. You do agree with me that they are whining though. I do not believe that there will be a large market of people that stop buying DVDs because they can now download them. Maybe there will be, it just does not make sense to me.
Once I have a decent method of getting my movies from my computer to my TV (i.e. iTV), and iTunes has more selection, I plan on never buying another DVD again. I'm in the minority here I'm sure, but for how long? How long before digital distribution is the method of choice for your average Joe?
My point is that their (Wal-Mart/Target) concerns are valid, but they're still just whining about it because they're scared of competition. Why isn't Wal-Mart whining and complaining about the Music Store? Oh... That's right, because they have one of their own. :rolleyes:
Ok, point taken. You do agree with me that they are whining though. I do not believe that there will be a large market of people that stop buying DVDs because they can now download them. Maybe there will be, it just does not make sense to me.
Gromit
Aug 15, 05:12 AM
I hate these ads. Thankfully they have taken it off the Apple front page, it was getting to the point where I feared my Apple bookmark. Apart from them being irritating, negative, uninformative and dull, they do not travel well.
At least the dreadful "Shake 'n' Vac" adverts were dubbed into a local tongue when they played outside of the US.
At least the dreadful "Shake 'n' Vac" adverts were dubbed into a local tongue when they played outside of the US.
volk
Oct 26, 04:30 PM
I use Audition for the same purpose. I preferred the application when it was Cool Edit, I feel Adobe have bloated it out ever so slightly. But beggars can't be choosers - It's an important tool for me.
I've had a go with "SoundBooth", its literally the most basic editing pulled from the original Cool Edit code with a few effects pallets. Defiantly not enough for me. It runs well though, nice-ish interface, not sluggish. I personally wouldn't pay more than £30 - £40 for it, its just too basic.
Audition has definitely suffered from the "Adobe Bloat" syndrome and I would happily move on from it, but every audio app out there is either focused on recording musicians in multitrack or simple single track editing. Soundtrack has a lovely user interface and excellent integration for video work, but can't handle the simple things radio users need.
FWIW, I discovered today that HairerSoft is working on a pro version of Amadeus. It is only available as a beta at this point, but I have downloaded it for experimentation. Apparently, they have added multitrack support. You can learn more here: http://www.hairersoft.com/AmadeusPro/AmadeusPro.html
I haven't had a chance to install it yet, but I am hoping it works...
I've had a go with "SoundBooth", its literally the most basic editing pulled from the original Cool Edit code with a few effects pallets. Defiantly not enough for me. It runs well though, nice-ish interface, not sluggish. I personally wouldn't pay more than £30 - £40 for it, its just too basic.
Audition has definitely suffered from the "Adobe Bloat" syndrome and I would happily move on from it, but every audio app out there is either focused on recording musicians in multitrack or simple single track editing. Soundtrack has a lovely user interface and excellent integration for video work, but can't handle the simple things radio users need.
FWIW, I discovered today that HairerSoft is working on a pro version of Amadeus. It is only available as a beta at this point, but I have downloaded it for experimentation. Apparently, they have added multitrack support. You can learn more here: http://www.hairersoft.com/AmadeusPro/AmadeusPro.html
I haven't had a chance to install it yet, but I am hoping it works...
whatever
Nov 14, 11:54 AM
Good point (truly) ... but I stand by what I said too. I think if your scenario wwas true then we would see Creative Zen adapters or SanDisk Snasa adapters on the market - at least they have proven marketshare against the iPod. Still ... it will be interesting to see how this will pan out.
What i wonder is if the Wifi the Zune uses for file transfers will be banned on planes. If it's not, then i want to be able to use Wifi for any device on a plane.
You currently are not allowed, by law, to broadcast any signals on airwaves on an aircraft while in the air. Bluetooth, WiFi, phone, etc.
What i wonder is if the Wifi the Zune uses for file transfers will be banned on planes. If it's not, then i want to be able to use Wifi for any device on a plane.
You currently are not allowed, by law, to broadcast any signals on airwaves on an aircraft while in the air. Bluetooth, WiFi, phone, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment