robanga
Apr 13, 10:27 PM
I tend to use all the office apps and go back and fourth depending on needs. The exception is PowerPoint for Windows, I don't use that very much.
Liquorpuki
May 3, 07:09 PM
In history, war is the driver of innovation...from the measly dart, to the nuclear warhead.
Yeah Somalia has been at war for years and their technology has utterly skyrocketed.
Fun fact: LED TV's were invented during wartime because our soldiers in Afghanistan were tired of hauling their 50 inch tube tv's through the desert.
Advanced in bomb detection leads to better sensors for medical diagnosis.
Advances in robots leads to better prosthetics and automating.
Advances in field portable displays leads to large LED screens for remote surgery.
Advances in nanotech will potentially change everything we know of as "technology" today.
Those are all blanket statements that could be wrong depending on what example you use. IE the best Medical sensor out there is the MRI and it wasn't invented to detect bombs. Actually if you try to use an MRI to detect a bomb, there's a good chance you'll blow yourself up.
Many of the above will assist the "cure for cancer", or whatever it is that scares you to death. If you think that during "peacetime", everyone and their mom will devote their lives to "finding the cure", you are sadly mistaken. Humans are lazy...until their life is immediately threatened. War is why we evolved so far past the next "animal".
Doesn't cancer immediately threaten lives?
Yeah Somalia has been at war for years and their technology has utterly skyrocketed.
Fun fact: LED TV's were invented during wartime because our soldiers in Afghanistan were tired of hauling their 50 inch tube tv's through the desert.
Advanced in bomb detection leads to better sensors for medical diagnosis.
Advances in robots leads to better prosthetics and automating.
Advances in field portable displays leads to large LED screens for remote surgery.
Advances in nanotech will potentially change everything we know of as "technology" today.
Those are all blanket statements that could be wrong depending on what example you use. IE the best Medical sensor out there is the MRI and it wasn't invented to detect bombs. Actually if you try to use an MRI to detect a bomb, there's a good chance you'll blow yourself up.
Many of the above will assist the "cure for cancer", or whatever it is that scares you to death. If you think that during "peacetime", everyone and their mom will devote their lives to "finding the cure", you are sadly mistaken. Humans are lazy...until their life is immediately threatened. War is why we evolved so far past the next "animal".
Doesn't cancer immediately threaten lives?
G5Unit
Apr 4, 07:46 PM
Kinda late but I like pages!
CFreymarc
Nov 20, 10:47 AM
Pretty cool that some kid can take initiative and do what Apple apparently cannot.
I am sure there is going to be a bunch going back and forth. It is very hard to prosecute on this if it was a parts order the primary didn't accept. He may claim that he is just selling surplus or discarded parts as salvage. Love to know who is footing the PIs bill to harass this kid.
I am sure there is going to be a bunch going back and forth. It is very hard to prosecute on this if it was a parts order the primary didn't accept. He may claim that he is just selling surplus or discarded parts as salvage. Love to know who is footing the PIs bill to harass this kid.
more...
jayP1201
Jan 6, 05:56 PM
Reset the phone and I get the notifications but can't hear any sound when I get them? anybody know what I'm doing wrong?
ColoJohnBoy
May 22, 11:28 AM
As I write this, I am sitting at my parent's old Compaq Presario 5000, with 750 MHz AMD Duron, 576 MB RAM, 30 GB Hard Drive, and 64 MB NVidia GeForce 2 card (Most of it I have upgraded myself) and running Windows XP Home. I have used PCs for about ten years now. I am familiar with them, I know exactly where to find everthing on them, how to fix everything on them.... I know how everything works, even in XP. Yet Last June, I switched to Mac. Why?
1) Design. PC computers are just hideous. Really, they're simply not attractive to look at. The only one that comes glose is Gateway's All-In-One computer. But even that is no iMac. Apple computers really are beautiful. They're simple, graceful, and durable.
2) Mac OS X. Like I said, I know every Windows OS inside and out, having used every iteration of it for ten years. Yet I prefer OS X. Just like the physical design of the computer, OS X is simple, graceful, and durable. What some might perceive as "dumbed down" I see as rid of the unneecessary aspects that all but a small fraction of the computer user population use. It's clear and straightforward, and never have I experienced any problems with it. I admit, it has crashed twice. But both times it was because I was trying to run a severly faulty program. That's two crashes in one year. I'm lucky if I can make it through one day without having Windows (Yes, even XP) crash twice.
3) iApps. I've been using my parents computer lately, and looking for a good MP3 program to use while I do. I've been spoilt by iTunes. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, for PCs that works as well as iTunes. I've been using MusicMatch, but after iTunes it seems clunky, redundant, and difficult to use. Dare I say, unintuitive.
4) Health. I have enough headaches in my life already. I don't need even the small stresses that crashes, program errors, and unintuitive programs cause. I don't stress out when I'm using my Macs. It's like electronic aspirin.
I admit to bashing Pcs. But I must defend myself by saying that I use them enough to be entitled to such bashing. For me, Macs are better, and I bash them with good reason.
That, and bashing PCs is just fun ;)
Visit http://bluepudding.1hwy.com
1) Design. PC computers are just hideous. Really, they're simply not attractive to look at. The only one that comes glose is Gateway's All-In-One computer. But even that is no iMac. Apple computers really are beautiful. They're simple, graceful, and durable.
2) Mac OS X. Like I said, I know every Windows OS inside and out, having used every iteration of it for ten years. Yet I prefer OS X. Just like the physical design of the computer, OS X is simple, graceful, and durable. What some might perceive as "dumbed down" I see as rid of the unneecessary aspects that all but a small fraction of the computer user population use. It's clear and straightforward, and never have I experienced any problems with it. I admit, it has crashed twice. But both times it was because I was trying to run a severly faulty program. That's two crashes in one year. I'm lucky if I can make it through one day without having Windows (Yes, even XP) crash twice.
3) iApps. I've been using my parents computer lately, and looking for a good MP3 program to use while I do. I've been spoilt by iTunes. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, for PCs that works as well as iTunes. I've been using MusicMatch, but after iTunes it seems clunky, redundant, and difficult to use. Dare I say, unintuitive.
4) Health. I have enough headaches in my life already. I don't need even the small stresses that crashes, program errors, and unintuitive programs cause. I don't stress out when I'm using my Macs. It's like electronic aspirin.
I admit to bashing Pcs. But I must defend myself by saying that I use them enough to be entitled to such bashing. For me, Macs are better, and I bash them with good reason.
That, and bashing PCs is just fun ;)
Visit http://bluepudding.1hwy.com
more...
jwascher
Feb 23, 10:52 PM
Looks to me like they all have white wine in their glasses, but Steve's is still full while everyone has been drinking form theirs'.
HitchHykr
Mar 25, 01:40 PM
I just got the 32GB wi-fi only version for $399 but now I regret it, I wish I would have purchased the 16GB 3G version from AT&T for $429. I think connectivity is more important....oh well, I can live with it!
more...
jonessodarally
Jun 18, 01:46 PM
How beautiful would that be for Time Machine, particularly in a laptop?
Wow, hadn't even thought about that... That would be so nice. :o
Wow, hadn't even thought about that... That would be so nice. :o
Dagless
Jun 20, 10:43 AM
^ Right now I'd go for a PS3 since I prefer the exclusives for that over the Xbox. You won't go wrong with either though. Sports titles (at least the very popular ones) are always multiplatform. Online play is better on the Xbox though you have to pay a subscription for it. The new Xbox has built in Wifi.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell!
That's pretty much it in a nutshell!
more...
wizard
Oct 6, 02:19 PM
I mean really people do you think iPhone and by extension Apple is permantly tied to just one screen size? Do you realize how stupid that would be from the standpoint of running a competitive business? Beyound that should Apple give up potential sales, to people with different needs, just to keep a bunch of thin skinned people happy with respect to their iPhone purchase?
In anyevent please stop the whinning about developers, if they followed Apples guide lines their apps would work fine on the new model. In fact many people in these forums really should just shut up until they read the developer documentation.
Second; I personally find the idea of a slightly larger iPhone to bevery attractive. Considering the comments in the thread many other people do too. Why is pretty straight forward, more info on screen or real estate. This doesn't even have to lead to a massively bigger device either. Length might be impacted only modestly and maybe an 1/8 to a 1/4" wider. Adding one or two rows of text while editing and cutting down on scrolling would be huge. In the end the aspect ratio would be wider and allow for better video play back.
The important thing is enhanced usability which i think many here are underestimating in importance. For many the current iPhone screen represents a compromise in size (most cell phone screens are) but as technology moves forward supporting bigger screens becomes far easier. The GPUs in the ARM SoC are now to the point where they can drive just about any sized screen (pixel count). So technology has removed many of the barriers to larger screens. It then becomes an issue of salability of the device. Comments in this thread indicate strong demand for a slightly larger model so I don't see a problem.
Conversely the ability to produce a smaller cell phone is like wise driven by technology. The demands and requirements are different here though. I suspect many would be willing to give up some of iPhones smart phone features but yet retaing some of the advantages. One big one is the very clean syncing that a small iPhone would have to support. Honestly the device doesn't even needs to support the same GUI as the market is different. Here customers are more interested in ultra portable small devices. Apple can be as successful here as they are with smart phones simply by paying atention to details. The should be as the market for these devices is huge, far larger than smart phones.
Dave
In anyevent please stop the whinning about developers, if they followed Apples guide lines their apps would work fine on the new model. In fact many people in these forums really should just shut up until they read the developer documentation.
Second; I personally find the idea of a slightly larger iPhone to bevery attractive. Considering the comments in the thread many other people do too. Why is pretty straight forward, more info on screen or real estate. This doesn't even have to lead to a massively bigger device either. Length might be impacted only modestly and maybe an 1/8 to a 1/4" wider. Adding one or two rows of text while editing and cutting down on scrolling would be huge. In the end the aspect ratio would be wider and allow for better video play back.
The important thing is enhanced usability which i think many here are underestimating in importance. For many the current iPhone screen represents a compromise in size (most cell phone screens are) but as technology moves forward supporting bigger screens becomes far easier. The GPUs in the ARM SoC are now to the point where they can drive just about any sized screen (pixel count). So technology has removed many of the barriers to larger screens. It then becomes an issue of salability of the device. Comments in this thread indicate strong demand for a slightly larger model so I don't see a problem.
Conversely the ability to produce a smaller cell phone is like wise driven by technology. The demands and requirements are different here though. I suspect many would be willing to give up some of iPhones smart phone features but yet retaing some of the advantages. One big one is the very clean syncing that a small iPhone would have to support. Honestly the device doesn't even needs to support the same GUI as the market is different. Here customers are more interested in ultra portable small devices. Apple can be as successful here as they are with smart phones simply by paying atention to details. The should be as the market for these devices is huge, far larger than smart phones.
Dave
DaveGee
Apr 16, 03:48 PM
And hopefully Fiore will do a cartoon about it :p ... well maybe not, his app could be banned again :eek:
Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:
Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...
This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.
Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:
Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...
This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.
more...
Pismo
Apr 2, 04:26 PM
I like Pages. I haven't had any problems with it. I haven't used all of the features though. I mostly use it for printing envelopes which works great. It will only get better and I'm sure Apple will add more features like spread sheets and maybe a GUI front-end for SQL.
bluebomberman
Feb 24, 05:12 PM
it would be great if the "full" version is included. maybe you're forced to purchase additional "packs" via app-store if you want to enhance a "basic" server version, i.e. mail-server etc.
There's no indication on Apple's Lion preview page that they're packaging a gutted server package with additional add-ons to be sold separately.
Easy Setup
Lion Server guides you through configuring your Mac as a server. And it provides local and remote administration — for users and groups, push notifications, file sharing, calendaring, mail, contacts, chat, Time Machine, VPN, web, and wiki services — all in one place.
It's all speculation at this point, but a description like that makes it sound like ALL of Lion Server is included in each copy of Lion.
There's no indication on Apple's Lion preview page that they're packaging a gutted server package with additional add-ons to be sold separately.
Easy Setup
Lion Server guides you through configuring your Mac as a server. And it provides local and remote administration — for users and groups, push notifications, file sharing, calendaring, mail, contacts, chat, Time Machine, VPN, web, and wiki services — all in one place.
It's all speculation at this point, but a description like that makes it sound like ALL of Lion Server is included in each copy of Lion.
more...
skunk
Sep 13, 09:32 AM
I know -- just a few minutes with them and they'll have you in stitches.
Cute super Short haircuts
more...
2011 wavy hairstyle trends
hairstyles for girls 2011.
Cute hairstyles 2011 could
srf4real
Sep 28, 06:04 PM
I think we'll see 10.4.good buddy before Leopard is available:p
more...
tenshin5426
May 1, 06:34 AM
give em hell kid! really fantastic going lets just hope apple are far to busy skirmishing with samsung then picking on young businessmen rofl
MacModMachine
Nov 18, 07:31 AM
Stolen goods or not, nevermind that - but $300 per kit? :eek:
Why not just buy a white case?
lol yup,
white case is what?...$10-$20 ?
and you can replace it in a second.
anything over 40$ is a joke for a few pieces of plastic.
Why not just buy a white case?
lol yup,
white case is what?...$10-$20 ?
and you can replace it in a second.
anything over 40$ is a joke for a few pieces of plastic.
MacBandit
Sep 14, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by King Cobra
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one. They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it. These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one. They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it. These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
gopher
Sep 13, 09:06 AM
The Mhz myth is true. When Genentech is able to use a dual 1 Ghz Mac to go 5 times faster than their PC counterparts, and Photoshop up to 90 % faster than a Pentium IV 2.53 Ghz on a dual 1.25 Ghz Mac, the myth is true. Even the Athlon 2.6 Ghz is faster than the 2.8 Ghz Pentium IV. In some instances even the 1.6 Ghz Pentium III is faster than the Pentium IV. Mhz has nothing to do with speed. When your stage is 3 times longer, you have to go three times as fast to catch up.
If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.
If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.
jettredmont
Oct 26, 04:46 PM
Wow, I expected PPC support to drop in a few years, not a few months. Sucks for anyone with the Quad G5s. Sucks for me with my dual G5. :(
I hope this won't be a common trend.
Well, I think what happened here is that Adobe was developing this application for Windows only. Then, they saw Intel Macs and said, hey, for a little extra dev work, we can support Macs too!
The likely problem here is that their underlying sound processing libraries (probably still left over from Cool Edit et al) are heavily reliant on Intel technologies.
I seriously doubt they started from scratch and decided that they'd do it Intel only just to tick us all off. It's seriously significantly easier to just use Apple's Intel/PPC libraries OR isolate your bottleneck code and #ifdef away the two hand-tweaked assembly bits, than to even support older versions of Mac OS. I mean, seriously: developing an app which is backwards compatible with Jaguar is SIGNIFICANTLY harder than developing (from scratch) an app which supports Tiger/PPC and Tiger/Intel!
In any case: will this be an emerging trend? Probably. I can imagine a lot of Windows developers will look at their legacy codebase, the newly-changed calculus of Mac compatibility, and decide that it will be easy to slap a Mac-friendly interface on their Windows/Intel code base where that was just plain impossible before. And, yes, there will also be those who otherwise might have taken the plunge into a true Mac version of their software who look at the same calculus and decide it would save them a whole lot of money and cost them only half of their new market to just slap a Mac-happy interface on their old Windows workhorse instead.
So, for better or ill, that's what we're likely to see. The good part is that it's an increase in software available for the Mac. The bad part is that it's a decrease in software written ground-up to work perfectly on the Mac.
I hope this won't be a common trend.
Well, I think what happened here is that Adobe was developing this application for Windows only. Then, they saw Intel Macs and said, hey, for a little extra dev work, we can support Macs too!
The likely problem here is that their underlying sound processing libraries (probably still left over from Cool Edit et al) are heavily reliant on Intel technologies.
I seriously doubt they started from scratch and decided that they'd do it Intel only just to tick us all off. It's seriously significantly easier to just use Apple's Intel/PPC libraries OR isolate your bottleneck code and #ifdef away the two hand-tweaked assembly bits, than to even support older versions of Mac OS. I mean, seriously: developing an app which is backwards compatible with Jaguar is SIGNIFICANTLY harder than developing (from scratch) an app which supports Tiger/PPC and Tiger/Intel!
In any case: will this be an emerging trend? Probably. I can imagine a lot of Windows developers will look at their legacy codebase, the newly-changed calculus of Mac compatibility, and decide that it will be easy to slap a Mac-friendly interface on their Windows/Intel code base where that was just plain impossible before. And, yes, there will also be those who otherwise might have taken the plunge into a true Mac version of their software who look at the same calculus and decide it would save them a whole lot of money and cost them only half of their new market to just slap a Mac-happy interface on their old Windows workhorse instead.
So, for better or ill, that's what we're likely to see. The good part is that it's an increase in software available for the Mac. The bad part is that it's a decrease in software written ground-up to work perfectly on the Mac.
Laird Knox
May 2, 04:31 PM
let us have news of obama bin ladens death!
I didn't even know he was sick! On second thought, never heard of him.
I didn't even know he was sick! On second thought, never heard of him.
typecase
Oct 26, 03:05 PM
Wow, I expected PPC support to drop in a few years, not a few months. Sucks for anyone with the Quad G5s. Sucks for me with my dual G5. :(
I hope this won't be a common trend.
Amen! Why not just release it Universal and check the other box when compiling?
I hope this won't be a common trend.
Amen! Why not just release it Universal and check the other box when compiling?
spazzcat
Jan 4, 12:37 PM
Yeah, I need the maps to be available if I'm out of coverage so it's a no sale for me too. I was really happy to hear they finally released something and now this. :(
I am sure this works like other download GPS apps. They download the maps based on the route. They download the hold trip as soon as you start out and cache the maps. So, unless you are starting out without coverage, i don't see how this would be an issue.
I am sure this works like other download GPS apps. They download the maps based on the route. They download the hold trip as soon as you start out and cache the maps. So, unless you are starting out without coverage, i don't see how this would be an issue.