sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:50 AM
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
Download Call of Duty: Modern
maps from Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
the Call of Duty: Modern
Maps withmar , create your
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 09:00 PM
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
Piggie
Apr 28, 06:20 PM
And I thought the 14.4 modems were slow!
Prestel Pages were 1K each page, so not too bad to come down the phone line at 1200 and your key presses were sent back at 75.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Viewdata_Graphics_1.jpg
http://www.neuralmap.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/prestel_micronet.gif
Prestel Pages were 1K each page, so not too bad to come down the phone line at 1200 and your key presses were sent back at 75.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Viewdata_Graphics_1.jpg
http://www.neuralmap.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/prestel_micronet.gif
roland.g
Sep 20, 09:51 AM
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
cdembek
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong.
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
sinsin07
Apr 9, 03:36 AM
Wait, why is FFII and FFIII more a mind numbing time killer over any other game (I am getting FFIII either when it goes on a good sale or I finally finish up my other games, whichever comes first)? Or Myst or Riven for that matter (both on my phone, I've beaten Myst but haven't started Riven).
Warfare 2 (or Call of Duty 6:
of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.
Call Of Duty - Modern Warfare
Modern Warfare 2 will blow you
Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
array map
Duty Modern Warfare 2 Map
call of duty black ops zombies
Modern Warfare 2 Stimulus
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
of Modern Warfare 2 maps.
call of duty vietnam
duty 6 Modern warfare 2.
tteerts
Oct 5, 05:06 PM
Aparently the answer is "technically yes". See below. I did not know that. But from what they say and a practical point of view the answer is still no.
No worries... but it was a subtlety like that which I was thinking about. I agree that I would likely never know the difference.
No worries... but it was a subtlety like that which I was thinking about. I agree that I would likely never know the difference.
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 06:44 AM
...speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345, as they are the only models that support a 1333 MHz front side bus, which is what current Mac Pros use.
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
AppleinJapan
Sep 20, 10:26 PM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ???????? Apple must first provide the same content on all their stores.....I know its not Apples fault but this iTV device is going in the wrong direction if it is only going to play itunes movies etc etc.....The rest of the world is STILL waiting to buy tv shows....
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ???????? Apple must first provide the same content on all their stores.....I know its not Apples fault but this iTV device is going in the wrong direction if it is only going to play itunes movies etc etc.....The rest of the world is STILL waiting to buy tv shows....
mi5moav
Aug 29, 11:34 AM
I used to be a member of greenpeace for about 8 years, 3 of which I was diehard. However, over the last few years I've really gotten sick and tired of them spouting stuff they really have no clue what the hell they are talking about. From friends and acquaintences I can personally vouch that Apple is trying very hard to be echo friendly. Of course if Greenpeace would say Apple is doing fine Greenpeace wouldn't get much attention... but by saying Apple is doing a lousy job, which I know for fact isn't fact...they get there name on the fron page. Though, I believe in the soul of greenpeace I reallly think that they need to go about this an entirely different way. They have a great rallying cry for 15-30 year olds and they can amass a huge lobying group if they actually put their best foot forward instead of these stupid gimmicks they have been pulling the last few years.
RichP
Oct 26, 12:58 PM
Just thought I'd put in my piece of advice about DVI-DL KVM switches. I'm only aware of three of them on the market, the two most common are from Gefen (www.gefen.com). I'm using the 4x1 Gefen and it works perfectly switching my primary display between my G5 quad, two PCs and my MBP. I know the quad switch is double the price, but DO NOT BUY THE 2x1 DVI-DL SWITCH from Gefen!!!
Darn it! That is just stupid. I have a gefen DVI switch now, its sad to hear that the 2x1 is junk. Its not worth it to me for the 4x1, either 900 for a switch, for for 1280, (a few hundred more) I get ANOTHER 30"!
I wish the apple 23s just had the quality of the 20 and 30. :mad:
Darn it! That is just stupid. I have a gefen DVI switch now, its sad to hear that the 2x1 is junk. Its not worth it to me for the 4x1, either 900 for a switch, for for 1280, (a few hundred more) I get ANOTHER 30"!
I wish the apple 23s just had the quality of the 20 and 30. :mad:
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:36 PM
You referring to the big bang, or those reported six days?
Well, considering the six days doesn't refer to six literal days, I must be referring to the big bang.
Well, considering the six days doesn't refer to six literal days, I must be referring to the big bang.
lilo777
Apr 28, 03:50 PM
Most people run windows on their macs? are you high?
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:49 PM
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence.
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I think the batteries of your sarcasm detector are low. You completely missed my point: the iPod is the granddaddy of today's iOS devices even though so many dismissed it when it was first released.
There were hordes of people in 2001 saying the iPod was a fad, that other MP3 players had more features, etc. Even years later people were dissing the iPod because it didn't have a radio and all of the iPod's supposed competitors did.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I think the batteries of your sarcasm detector are low. You completely missed my point: the iPod is the granddaddy of today's iOS devices even though so many dismissed it when it was first released.
There were hordes of people in 2001 saying the iPod was a fad, that other MP3 players had more features, etc. Even years later people were dissing the iPod because it didn't have a radio and all of the iPod's supposed competitors did.
JediZenMaster
Mar 18, 10:34 AM
I'm happy AT&T did this because i'm a firm believer that you should pay for what you consume. I know people may disagree but don't complain to me just deal with AT&T.
Happy Tethering :p
Happy Tethering :p
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:21 PM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
p0intblank
Sep 20, 04:38 PM
I'm really hoping this is the iPod all over again. In other words, I hope all the naysayers here get proved wrong and the iTV becomes the new toy everyone has to have in their house.
Apple needs to market this, by the way. Guaranteed there are tons of households willing to purchase this just to play photo slideshows on their TVs. I hope Apple can get the message across. I want as many people possible to recognize what a great product this is going to be.
Apple needs to market this, by the way. Guaranteed there are tons of households willing to purchase this just to play photo slideshows on their TVs. I hope Apple can get the message across. I want as many people possible to recognize what a great product this is going to be.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
KindredMAC
Jul 11, 11:37 PM
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
skunk
Apr 26, 05:38 PM
I could murder some toast.
philbeeney
Mar 11, 01:51 PM
And to compound matters further, they've had a 6.2 on the west coast in Nigaata prefecture. Not looking good especially with all the aftershocks occurring.
Warbrain
Oct 8, 07:55 AM
Android my not be recognizable to the average consumer but GOOGLE sure as hell is.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
I think you're giving people too much credit. I can tell someone about Android and they don't have a clue about the OS or who makes it.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
I think you're giving people too much credit. I can tell someone about Android and they don't have a clue about the OS or who makes it.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 05:04 PM
We're on the same sheet of music, Java...
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.