sunfast
Sep 12, 08:26 AM
Is there going ot be an IRC feed like WWDC? If so what is the channel/port? Sorry to ask here, but I couldn't find the info on the main page...
Have a look here (http://www.macrumorslive.com/irc/login/)
Have a look here (http://www.macrumorslive.com/irc/login/)
schwell
Oct 8, 09:52 PM
You can't get email or surf the web while talking on a Verizon 3G phone. You can on AT&T and T-Mobile.
AT&T should show an empty map for where you can have both on Verizon.
AT&T should show an empty map for where you can have both on Verizon.
thequicksilver
Jan 5, 03:23 PM
Perfect, wonderful, magnificent: many many thanks indeed. :)
<runs off to delete all his Mac-related RSS feeds until Wednesday>
<runs off to delete all his Mac-related RSS feeds until Wednesday>
inket
Apr 13, 02:54 PM
Seriously ? You are comparing Windows' networking to that of OS X ? Huge difference.
How many menus do you have to go through to share a folder ? Change an IP address ? Change networks order ?
Can you even change interfaces (or "service") order ? I like my Mac to use Ethernet for Internet when I'm connected to both Ethernet and Wifi. Can Windows do that ?
Can you set up "Locations" ? No, not that stupid "Home, Work, Public" wannabe-secure popup-everytime BS.
Not even going to talk about system-wide proxies. Those that Windows apps ignore all the time.
Windows PCs with enabled File Sharing (or whatever they call it, that new confusing Homegroup with a code or password or something) show up in Finder's sidebar. "It just works".
As for low transfer speeds, that could've been Windows' fault. I had the same; couldn't copy files to a friend's laptop at higher rates than 250KB/s and restarting Windows fixed it.
How many menus do you have to go through to share a folder ? Change an IP address ? Change networks order ?
Can you even change interfaces (or "service") order ? I like my Mac to use Ethernet for Internet when I'm connected to both Ethernet and Wifi. Can Windows do that ?
Can you set up "Locations" ? No, not that stupid "Home, Work, Public" wannabe-secure popup-everytime BS.
Not even going to talk about system-wide proxies. Those that Windows apps ignore all the time.
Windows PCs with enabled File Sharing (or whatever they call it, that new confusing Homegroup with a code or password or something) show up in Finder's sidebar. "It just works".
As for low transfer speeds, that could've been Windows' fault. I had the same; couldn't copy files to a friend's laptop at higher rates than 250KB/s and restarting Windows fixed it.
more...
plenderj
Apr 4, 08:24 AM
1) If you want to contact someone senior in Microsoft, contact an MVP first. There are MVPs for XBox. MVPs have many contacts inside Microsoft, and if they see fit, might forward your request.
2) If you have a wireless network, and other devices can connect to it, then chances are you are using NAT. If you are using NAT, then both your own computer and the XBox360 would have the same public IP address, in which case you already know your public IP. Therefore, the IP address of the XBox is irrelevant - in this case.
3) If the thief in question has left the area, and connects to the internet again through another network, then they will obviously have a different IP Address, and you can possibly use route #1 to track down the individual.
You also mentioned that you know the device has been on the internet because of certain internet services. If you can contact one of those - after the device reconnects - it might be easier to get the device's IP address from those individuals rather than Microsoft.
(bear in mind, Microsoft might be legally bound to not give out user-identifiable information, irrespective of the circumstances)
So if you can get the IP in question, you now know the ISP in question, and the ISP would (should) be able to track which user account or telephone number or address was using that particular IP address at that particular time.
This of course brings you back to the original problem of tracking down where the unit is etc. etc., but it makes more sense to do this now.
I'm sure there is something you could have done or will be able to do in relation to checking signal strength from other devices by walking around with a laptop in order to figure out a rough location of the wireless device.
They could do this in the 40s with radio transmissions so I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of possibility to do it in the 21st century :)
Just my €0.02 :)
2) If you have a wireless network, and other devices can connect to it, then chances are you are using NAT. If you are using NAT, then both your own computer and the XBox360 would have the same public IP address, in which case you already know your public IP. Therefore, the IP address of the XBox is irrelevant - in this case.
3) If the thief in question has left the area, and connects to the internet again through another network, then they will obviously have a different IP Address, and you can possibly use route #1 to track down the individual.
You also mentioned that you know the device has been on the internet because of certain internet services. If you can contact one of those - after the device reconnects - it might be easier to get the device's IP address from those individuals rather than Microsoft.
(bear in mind, Microsoft might be legally bound to not give out user-identifiable information, irrespective of the circumstances)
So if you can get the IP in question, you now know the ISP in question, and the ISP would (should) be able to track which user account or telephone number or address was using that particular IP address at that particular time.
This of course brings you back to the original problem of tracking down where the unit is etc. etc., but it makes more sense to do this now.
I'm sure there is something you could have done or will be able to do in relation to checking signal strength from other devices by walking around with a laptop in order to figure out a rough location of the wireless device.
They could do this in the 40s with radio transmissions so I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of possibility to do it in the 21st century :)
Just my €0.02 :)
SchneiderMan
Apr 9, 01:21 AM
How did you get beats for $80?
Probably knockoffs. Or as many here would say, the owner just wanted to get rid of them because no one wanted to purchase them :p
Got my MacBook Air 13" an ultra-violet RadTech Sleevz sleeve.
http://www.gadgetmac.com/storage/product-images/Screen%20shot%202011-04-07%20at%2010.56.42%20PM.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302299615195
Probably knockoffs. Or as many here would say, the owner just wanted to get rid of them because no one wanted to purchase them :p
Got my MacBook Air 13" an ultra-violet RadTech Sleevz sleeve.
http://www.gadgetmac.com/storage/product-images/Screen%20shot%202011-04-07%20at%2010.56.42%20PM.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302299615195
more...
bloodycape
Nov 16, 02:00 PM
maybe some misunderstood what they read and assumed it was going to be in laptops. Maybe the real deal with AMD is for the use of the Alchemy processor for maybe the next ipod?
twoodcc
Oct 10, 05:44 PM
well i hope it's true. i'll believe it when i see it though
more...
curmi
Nov 24, 04:09 AM
Huge saving on airport express. New Airport Ultra Express (802.11n) at Macworld!
Confirmed! :)
Confirmed! :)
lmalave
Oct 19, 10:46 AM
Woohoo!! This is the first time I can remember that Apple has had over 5% market share! :D
I think they got briefly back up to 8% or so after the initial launch of the iMac. Nice to see them climbing back up to that range. I hope they break 10% within a couple of years, because I think that is right about at the critical mass where a lot more software developers will consider developing an OS X version of their product.
I think they got briefly back up to 8% or so after the initial launch of the iMac. Nice to see them climbing back up to that range. I hope they break 10% within a couple of years, because I think that is right about at the critical mass where a lot more software developers will consider developing an OS X version of their product.
more...
varcos
Jan 9, 03:25 PM
OK, i dont know if this is a problem, but the URL of the keynote itself happens to contain a spoiler. Could be an issue.
Actually someone at Apple took the spoiler off the keynote URL page:
So, it's not here anymore:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf07/
But it is everywhere else on the site.
Very nice of them.
Actually someone at Apple took the spoiler off the keynote URL page:
So, it's not here anymore:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf07/
But it is everywhere else on the site.
Very nice of them.
davepoint
Aug 14, 01:52 AM
You're telling me they haven't recouped costs for designing the things yet? Or that we should always have to pay..
more...
Multimedia
Oct 4, 07:49 AM
The people I have spoken to who use PC's are not nerds or power users, however, they do have monitors that work perfectly fine and want to use them. Why would someone purchase a 20" iMac when they already have sitting on their desk a 12 month old 19" LCD? They may not all need expandability (or really understand what that means) but they are of the mind set that they must have the option. These people are simply not considering Apple computers because of the lack of an upgradeable computer that is under $1500 (the mini is not easily upgradeable unless you happen to be one of those nerds you are refering to). The gap between the mini and the Mac Pro is enormous in both power and price yet there is nothing in the middle price/power range. Simply dismissing this catagory of people will not convince them to buy an iMac. Further, saying the operating system will convince them to switch is a moot point if they never buy the computer in the first place.
My friends, family, and co-workers are all interested in this "OS X thing" but get turned off at the price of the Pro, the lack of power of the mini, and the all in one of the iMac. This is what I am seeing, and Apple is losing sales because of it.
Bravo. Apple Marketing needs a new Sheriff.You said the exact reasons why I bought a new PC tower and not a Mac, although I wanted to get a Mac.I completely understand your frustration. It's ridiculous what Apple is not doing to fill this obvious product line black hole which is sucking all the potential sales of Macs over to the PC side. :eek: :( :mad:
My friends, family, and co-workers are all interested in this "OS X thing" but get turned off at the price of the Pro, the lack of power of the mini, and the all in one of the iMac. This is what I am seeing, and Apple is losing sales because of it.
Bravo. Apple Marketing needs a new Sheriff.You said the exact reasons why I bought a new PC tower and not a Mac, although I wanted to get a Mac.I completely understand your frustration. It's ridiculous what Apple is not doing to fill this obvious product line black hole which is sucking all the potential sales of Macs over to the PC side. :eek: :( :mad:
ShnikeJSB
Aug 8, 01:35 PM
...and this could lead to some nasty screen burn.)
I was under the impression LCD's can't GET "Burn-In"... And that they MIGHT get "Image Persistance", which isn't permanent.
I was under the impression LCD's can't GET "Burn-In"... And that they MIGHT get "Image Persistance", which isn't permanent.
more...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
Hawkeye411
Mar 24, 05:16 PM
MacRumors didn't remember OSX's 10th birthday!! LOL .... This was posted multiple times this morning!
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1123393
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1123979
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12241443#post12241443
:D :D
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1123393
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1123979
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12241443#post12241443
:D :D
more...
cult hero
Mar 25, 12:27 PM
They will either merge iOS and OS X into something new or they will simply drop OS X altogether in favor of iOS. Since iOS is much more successful than OS X ever was and since it is getting more and more features and we are currently being trained - or better: conditioned - to even obtain our development tools through the AppStore, an "open" platform like OS X will very soon become obsolete for Apple.
*rolls eyes*
I'm gonna say this again: not happening. Lion may very well be the end of OS X in the sense that they give it a new version number and use new naming conventions but iOS and OS X are not merging in the sense that OS X will be locked down like iOS.
General purpose computers versus what are still treated consumer electronics (phones, tablets, etc.) have different needs and their OSes are different. Are there rumors about Windows 7 being superseded by Windows Mobile? How about doing away with Ubuntu in favor of Android?
There are a lot of components that the two OSes share. They will continue to share components and will continue to, more or less shape one another. It doesn't make any sense to lock down a computer. Developers are what make a platform. Locking down a computer like the iPhone and making it hostile to developers will KILL Apple.
Take your tinfoil hats off people. If you think we're heading toward a day when I can only install Apple approved AppStore apps on my laptop, you're just being paranoid. It doesn't help Apple AT ALL to do that.
*rolls eyes*
I'm gonna say this again: not happening. Lion may very well be the end of OS X in the sense that they give it a new version number and use new naming conventions but iOS and OS X are not merging in the sense that OS X will be locked down like iOS.
General purpose computers versus what are still treated consumer electronics (phones, tablets, etc.) have different needs and their OSes are different. Are there rumors about Windows 7 being superseded by Windows Mobile? How about doing away with Ubuntu in favor of Android?
There are a lot of components that the two OSes share. They will continue to share components and will continue to, more or less shape one another. It doesn't make any sense to lock down a computer. Developers are what make a platform. Locking down a computer like the iPhone and making it hostile to developers will KILL Apple.
Take your tinfoil hats off people. If you think we're heading toward a day when I can only install Apple approved AppStore apps on my laptop, you're just being paranoid. It doesn't help Apple AT ALL to do that.
KnightWRX
Apr 29, 07:24 PM
Read my post. I didn't say he was right about them being the same kernal. I simply said he was right about the naming conventions.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Windows 95/98 don't share a code base with Windows NT. You are aware that the NT line is a complete rewrite, 32 bit from the ground-up and a completely different kernel/system architecture ?
It's like saying OS X and classic are the same code base...
The Win32 sub-system (which is only 1 sub-system in NT) might share some code, that's about it.
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
No, because then as pointed out by your MS friend, it would be Windows NT 6.1 ;) Your blog post even says it doesn't make sense, so I don't see how "MS gave you info" when your "source" says it doesn't make any sense.
Again, only way it actually makes sense is from a marketing perspective and as being the 7th release in the Windows NT line-up.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Windows 95/98 don't share a code base with Windows NT. You are aware that the NT line is a complete rewrite, 32 bit from the ground-up and a completely different kernel/system architecture ?
It's like saying OS X and classic are the same code base...
The Win32 sub-system (which is only 1 sub-system in NT) might share some code, that's about it.
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
No, because then as pointed out by your MS friend, it would be Windows NT 6.1 ;) Your blog post even says it doesn't make sense, so I don't see how "MS gave you info" when your "source" says it doesn't make any sense.
Again, only way it actually makes sense is from a marketing perspective and as being the 7th release in the Windows NT line-up.
koruki
Mar 17, 07:16 PM
But your story doesn't surprise especially if you can come from the UK. iPhone did slip out of the TOP 5 in sales last year. I believe the HTC Desire was the most popular one. One of my favorite reviewers from the UK is James Whatley. He reminds me of Brandon Flowers from The Killers. He despises Apple with a passion. He works for Nokia now, so call him one of those diehard Nokians.
Oh come on now, we were talking about affordable Smart phones vs a Premium Smart phone. Let's keep this topic to real smart phones please, we know Nokia isn't in this market lol.
Oh come on now, we were talking about affordable Smart phones vs a Premium Smart phone. Let's keep this topic to real smart phones please, we know Nokia isn't in this market lol.
SkippyThorson
Apr 15, 12:41 PM
Is it just me, or is the writing on the 3rd photo a bit skewed, or rotated in an odd way?
You're entirely right, it does. It makes sense that the awkward image is the oldest too, since that was the earliest image. The other ones are a bit better because they obviously took time. The angles however on the back of the device, going from the middle out to the corners, are just awkward though.
I don't see how they would go back to angles after touting the more curved and comfortable 3G / 3GS back. There was a big focus on how much more comfortable the new iPhone was to hold compared to the first.
Regardless of the validity, I personally think the chances are very high for a unibody type iPhone, it only makes sense. Apple did a unibody macbook (plastic). Its Apple, everything standardizes and is consistent, otherwise Steve's head will explode.
You could be right too, especially that last line. Things are almost always uniform. However, when the iPod Classic went to metal, and the iPhone went to plastic, that was an unexpected switch. The iPhone has never really been "in line".
You're entirely right, it does. It makes sense that the awkward image is the oldest too, since that was the earliest image. The other ones are a bit better because they obviously took time. The angles however on the back of the device, going from the middle out to the corners, are just awkward though.
I don't see how they would go back to angles after touting the more curved and comfortable 3G / 3GS back. There was a big focus on how much more comfortable the new iPhone was to hold compared to the first.
Regardless of the validity, I personally think the chances are very high for a unibody type iPhone, it only makes sense. Apple did a unibody macbook (plastic). Its Apple, everything standardizes and is consistent, otherwise Steve's head will explode.
You could be right too, especially that last line. Things are almost always uniform. However, when the iPod Classic went to metal, and the iPhone went to plastic, that was an unexpected switch. The iPhone has never really been "in line".
toke lahti
Jan 15, 04:03 PM
These I'm missing:
1) No blu-ray
2) No eSata (with bootable + s.m.a.r.t.)
3) No hdcp+hdmi
4) Not breaking 8bit barrier with screens (16bit dvi, hdmi, udi or display port)
5) No 17" mbp with led backlight
6) No acd with hdcp/16bit dvi/hdmi/udi/display port
oh well, I was waiting for these also a year ago...
MBA seems to be quite cool, but display resolution is so low.
It has less hardware than MB, but higher price...
They crippled TM to work with APextreme + usb-drives and reason seems to sell TimeCapsules.
Btw, upgrading TC from 500GB to 1TB costs $200, upgrading MP's harddrive from 500GB to 1TB costs $300. Well, maybe MP's drives are not "server grade"...
1) No blu-ray
2) No eSata (with bootable + s.m.a.r.t.)
3) No hdcp+hdmi
4) Not breaking 8bit barrier with screens (16bit dvi, hdmi, udi or display port)
5) No 17" mbp with led backlight
6) No acd with hdcp/16bit dvi/hdmi/udi/display port
oh well, I was waiting for these also a year ago...
MBA seems to be quite cool, but display resolution is so low.
It has less hardware than MB, but higher price...
They crippled TM to work with APextreme + usb-drives and reason seems to sell TimeCapsules.
Btw, upgrading TC from 500GB to 1TB costs $200, upgrading MP's harddrive from 500GB to 1TB costs $300. Well, maybe MP's drives are not "server grade"...
lorductape
Nov 16, 02:33 PM
i think it would be a great idea for apple to merge with AMD
vendredi
Apr 25, 03:35 PM
Is it just me, or does the back of the iPhone look like the iPod touch (like recent rumours claimed)?
By the way, it would be moronic for Apple to use 4s instead of 5. They used 3Gs simply because you can't have an iPhone 3G and then a successor named iPhone 3.
By the way, it would be moronic for Apple to use 4s instead of 5. They used 3Gs simply because you can't have an iPhone 3G and then a successor named iPhone 3.
zap2
Apr 10, 07:02 PM
1 dollar raffle ticket from a friend for her sorority. And it support a charity, so why not?
0 comments:
Post a Comment