Young Spade
Apr 5, 10:23 PM
I just switched Friday afternoon so some of these things still aggrivate me a little lol.
I can't maximize a screen without dragging the one corner that lets me resize. This irritated me at first but now I don't mind having a moderate sized box, it allows me to see my wallpaper :) Plus with spaces, I never really need to fill up my screen with windows.
The whole folder/file tree thing in Finder is a little... simple? And it's going to take some getting used to for me. Also the whole not being able to simply cut and paste a file bothers me as well. I love organization and not being able to just cut and move something is a little iffy... unless there is a simple way and I just don't know how...
The keyboard commands will allow you do do a lot of things faster so I would highly suggest you learn them as quick as you can. Right now I'm pretty fluent with them and I'm doing a lot more in a shorter amount of time than I could do with a PC.
I can't maximize a screen without dragging the one corner that lets me resize. This irritated me at first but now I don't mind having a moderate sized box, it allows me to see my wallpaper :) Plus with spaces, I never really need to fill up my screen with windows.
The whole folder/file tree thing in Finder is a little... simple? And it's going to take some getting used to for me. Also the whole not being able to simply cut and paste a file bothers me as well. I love organization and not being able to just cut and move something is a little iffy... unless there is a simple way and I just don't know how...
The keyboard commands will allow you do do a lot of things faster so I would highly suggest you learn them as quick as you can. Right now I'm pretty fluent with them and I'm doing a lot more in a shorter amount of time than I could do with a PC.
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
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
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
~Shard~
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The iTV sounds great, however if I buy one I�m going to want to be able to utilize it to its fullest extent. And right now, living outside of the US, without access to TV shows on iTunes, let alone the new movies, it just doesn�t make sense for me to buy one. Hopefully things will change next year by the time it is released, but I have my doubts. As a result, there are going to have to be some other amazing features incorporated into this box to convince me to buy it, otherwise I�m not shelling out good money for a STB which Apple has essentially crippled for me. :cool:
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Lepton
Oct 25, 11:00 PM
It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
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?
Analog Kid
Sep 26, 12:21 AM
Until they get the 45nm process up and going, I think this is going to be the top of the line. 4 cores topping out around the mid 2GHz range.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
My bet? Specialized cores. You've got some that are optimized for floating point, some for application logic, some for media. This is where Cell gets it right, I think-- they're a step too far ahead for now though.
Biggest problem is getting the system to know what threads to feed to what core, and to get application writers to specialize their threads.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
My bet? Specialized cores. You've got some that are optimized for floating point, some for application logic, some for media. This is where Cell gets it right, I think-- they're a step too far ahead for now though.
Biggest problem is getting the system to know what threads to feed to what core, and to get application writers to specialize their threads.
KindredMAC
Sep 12, 08:37 PM
Could this actually be the Mac Home or iHome resurrection of the name of the fake product that came out a couple of years ago????
iJohnHenry
Apr 26, 06:08 PM
Munchies aside, miracle cures of old are likely misdiagnosis.
Leaches were used back then, right.
(Bad example, leaches, fly larva, etc, are valued assets in today's medicine.)
Leaches were used back then, right.
(Bad example, leaches, fly larva, etc, are valued assets in today's medicine.)
pdjudd
Oct 8, 11:30 AM
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
CoryTV
Apr 12, 10:15 PM
They should have just called this iMovie pro, because that's what it is. So, Apple Color is left to die the death of Shake, huh? Wow, crazy. I bet Avid is pretty thrilled with this. It's almost like they said "Let's leave the big installs to Avid"
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 04:46 PM
Hi guys,
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
RedTomato
Mar 15, 06:17 PM
Continuous live timestamped text based updates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
(may be a different link tomorrow, but check on the front page for the current link to live updates)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/15/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-japan
(link changes each day, check on front page for the current day's link)
BBC is slightly slower but more accurate (but they beat the Guardian when announcing the 4th explosion).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
(may be a different link tomorrow, but check on the front page for the current link to live updates)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/15/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-japan
(link changes each day, check on front page for the current day's link)
BBC is slightly slower but more accurate (but they beat the Guardian when announcing the 4th explosion).
Lennholm
May 2, 02:03 PM
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
killr_b
Jul 12, 04:57 PM
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
And why are you here?????
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
And why are you here?????
brianus
Sep 26, 02:19 PM
If what you say is true, then yes that would be IT. Why won't Tigerton go in Summer '07 Mac Pros?
This was epitaphic's explanation:
Intel has two lines of Xeon processors:
* The 5000 series is DP (dual processor, like Woodcrest, Clovertown)
* The 7000 series MP (multi processor - eg 4+ processors)
Tigerton is supposed to be an MP version of Clovertown. Meaning, you can have as many chips as the motherboard supports, and just like Clovertown its an MCM (two processors in one package). 7000's are also about 5-10x the price of 5000's.
So unless the specs for Tigerton severely change, no point even considering it on a Mac Pro (high end xserve is plausible).
(gotta love that arbitrary terminology, huh? -- 2 processors apparently isn't "multiple").
This was epitaphic's explanation:
Intel has two lines of Xeon processors:
* The 5000 series is DP (dual processor, like Woodcrest, Clovertown)
* The 7000 series MP (multi processor - eg 4+ processors)
Tigerton is supposed to be an MP version of Clovertown. Meaning, you can have as many chips as the motherboard supports, and just like Clovertown its an MCM (two processors in one package). 7000's are also about 5-10x the price of 5000's.
So unless the specs for Tigerton severely change, no point even considering it on a Mac Pro (high end xserve is plausible).
(gotta love that arbitrary terminology, huh? -- 2 processors apparently isn't "multiple").
Denarius
Mar 16, 09:38 AM
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/electricalgeneration.png
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
Spot on.
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
Spot on.
redkamel
Apr 13, 01:16 AM
When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
Photics
Apr 9, 09:42 AM
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
That's where things are going.
I read that a new XBOX might not be released for another 5 years and that the PlayStation is on a 10 year schedule. If that's actually the schedule, then the consoles could face serious competition from iOS and Android games.
The graphics difference from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 is a great comparison. That's just four years. What if that advancement continues for the next four years � which is very likely � the graphics could be amazing on iOS devices.
If the Apple TV � basically an iOS device � starts playing games, or if the iPad 2 matures as a gaming console (as it already plugs into the TV), how is that not competition for Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo?
I think it makes sense to compare Apple to the XBOX 360 and PlayStation 3. I'm not impressed with what I see on the consoles. Infamous is one of the best looking games on the PS3. Is it worth $60 to me? Ha, no! Instead, I bought cheaper games like Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix and Pac Man Championship Edition DX. Those are two great games... and both could be moved to iOS, and it would likely be cheaper.
That's where things are going.
I read that a new XBOX might not be released for another 5 years and that the PlayStation is on a 10 year schedule. If that's actually the schedule, then the consoles could face serious competition from iOS and Android games.
The graphics difference from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 is a great comparison. That's just four years. What if that advancement continues for the next four years � which is very likely � the graphics could be amazing on iOS devices.
If the Apple TV � basically an iOS device � starts playing games, or if the iPad 2 matures as a gaming console (as it already plugs into the TV), how is that not competition for Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo?
I think it makes sense to compare Apple to the XBOX 360 and PlayStation 3. I'm not impressed with what I see on the consoles. Infamous is one of the best looking games on the PS3. Is it worth $60 to me? Ha, no! Instead, I bought cheaper games like Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix and Pac Man Championship Edition DX. Those are two great games... and both could be moved to iOS, and it would likely be cheaper.
neiltc13
Apr 9, 06:00 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 09:35 PM
iTMS exists to sell iPods yes. But, if iTMS does not do something to protect the profits of those who allow iTMS to sell their songs then they will stop supplying iTMS with songs to sell.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:49 PM
One word.
Battery.
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
Battery.
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
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
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 09:24 AM
If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.