Zombie Acorn
May 7, 01:40 AM
So, ask for 'half a kilo'. Problem solved. :)
Sounds like a drug order to me.
Sounds like a drug order to me.
Nostromo
May 6, 02:15 AM
Depends on how much all software as to be rewritten.
So the desktops would use Intel and the laptops ARM?
Doesn't sound very convincing to me.
How much rewrite to the OS?
Sounds like a lot of trouble.
So the desktops would use Intel and the laptops ARM?
Doesn't sound very convincing to me.
How much rewrite to the OS?
Sounds like a lot of trouble.
.jpg "lack and white patterns for")
starstreak
Apr 20, 05:14 AM
OMG... Sources close to it says, Iphone5 coming. Faster processor.
Really? Wait. I'll close my eyes and wave my hand and say it'll have a nice screen with it. Might be bigger. But not decided yet. Oh... And it'll look nice! And not too different so to scare away people who likes things the same.... *sigh*
Seriously, I hope they release it soon. It'll need to have at least 64GB of space so I can finally get rid of my ipod.
Make it LARGER. Just a little. Give it a 4in screen. Oh and look... Now you have room for that larger battery and bigger CPU and camera.
I BET you if Apple released two TOP END models.
1) Same form factor. But with new CPU only. and 32gb memory to keep the same form factor.
and
2) Another with the same CPU but with 4in screen, larger battery, better camera,and 64gb memory. Of course a bit heavier.
I bet #2 would sell 3:1... Those who is willing to pay that high price of the 32GB model would be the same group of people willing to get the extras. If not for the screen size, then for the battery or better camera. Would I pay $150 more? Yes.
Here's the kicker. That would make it $450. That's slightly less than an unlocked Android that has most of those features NOW. Not 5 MONTHS from now. Granted, it's no iOS system. But it works.
Really? Wait. I'll close my eyes and wave my hand and say it'll have a nice screen with it. Might be bigger. But not decided yet. Oh... And it'll look nice! And not too different so to scare away people who likes things the same.... *sigh*
Seriously, I hope they release it soon. It'll need to have at least 64GB of space so I can finally get rid of my ipod.
Make it LARGER. Just a little. Give it a 4in screen. Oh and look... Now you have room for that larger battery and bigger CPU and camera.
I BET you if Apple released two TOP END models.
1) Same form factor. But with new CPU only. and 32gb memory to keep the same form factor.
and
2) Another with the same CPU but with 4in screen, larger battery, better camera,and 64gb memory. Of course a bit heavier.
I bet #2 would sell 3:1... Those who is willing to pay that high price of the 32GB model would be the same group of people willing to get the extras. If not for the screen size, then for the battery or better camera. Would I pay $150 more? Yes.
Here's the kicker. That would make it $450. That's slightly less than an unlocked Android that has most of those features NOW. Not 5 MONTHS from now. Granted, it's no iOS system. But it works.
ticman
Nov 20, 10:53 AM
I just sent BLT an email and wii let I know what I get back. Something doesn't sound right. Must not be getting 20000 units. Just strange
ihaveNFC
May 7, 11:25 PM
How is it a novelty?
Turned out not to have any particular value "for me" as I continued to use it.
Turned out not to have any particular value "for me" as I continued to use it.
digitalbiker
Aug 4, 09:09 PM
Who cares for Quicken - it's not performance critical. It probably wasn't worth the effort given the gains probaby wouldn't even be noticeable.
I'd think that all Apple's Pro apps market to the same small intel mac userbase, and they're done. They weren't cross platform so I'd think they weren't easy to port.
We all know Adobe's reasons - but still, two years is a long time.
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
I'd think that all Apple's Pro apps market to the same small intel mac userbase, and they're done. They weren't cross platform so I'd think they weren't easy to port.
We all know Adobe's reasons - but still, two years is a long time.
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
shartypants
Apr 7, 12:17 PM
Who wants a RIM playbook anyway, hehe.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
pmz
May 4, 03:14 PM
As long as you can burn a DVD or USB key from it, it should be a good way of distribution. It seem a bit reckless, however, not to have a offline backup around. Sometimes even Time Machine screws up.
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
gnasher729
May 6, 01:37 AM
There's no way that Apple is gonna switch to ARM for their Mac lines when it already took them a decade to make the transition from IBM to Intel processors.
You know how long it takes me to create an ARM version of my code on the Mac App Store?
Two minutes.
Now, OSX Lion is coming, and it appears to contain the beginnings of a convergence and consolidation between iOS and OSX. If we try to imagine where those OS's will be, say, 3 years out (and the hardware as well), by THAT time, it may be as simple as flipping a switch and hey-presto, you're on an ARM device without missing a beat...
What makes you think that ARM implies iOS? Apple had a version of MacOS X running on x86 processors four years before Intel processors were released. I'd bet that Apple has a version of Snow Leopard and Lion running on PowerPC (which they don't sell, just to make sure all code stays portable) and a version running on ARM (which is actually a lot easier than PowerPC).
This is the biggest load of ************ I have ever seen on this site. Why would Apple redesign everything in their notebooks to make this switch? What is gained by switching?
Cost - ARM chips are really cheap. Battery life - they don't take any power at all. Want an MBA with 20 hours battery life?
You know how long it takes me to create an ARM version of my code on the Mac App Store?
Two minutes.
Now, OSX Lion is coming, and it appears to contain the beginnings of a convergence and consolidation between iOS and OSX. If we try to imagine where those OS's will be, say, 3 years out (and the hardware as well), by THAT time, it may be as simple as flipping a switch and hey-presto, you're on an ARM device without missing a beat...
What makes you think that ARM implies iOS? Apple had a version of MacOS X running on x86 processors four years before Intel processors were released. I'd bet that Apple has a version of Snow Leopard and Lion running on PowerPC (which they don't sell, just to make sure all code stays portable) and a version running on ARM (which is actually a lot easier than PowerPC).
This is the biggest load of ************ I have ever seen on this site. Why would Apple redesign everything in their notebooks to make this switch? What is gained by switching?
Cost - ARM chips are really cheap. Battery life - they don't take any power at all. Want an MBA with 20 hours battery life?
Detlev
Jul 30, 08:38 AM
- The obvious untapped area is integration of VoIP, 3G, & video - but all the big companies are looking at that. The other thing that most mobile companies are having trouble with is the killer app - so many phones have data connectivity, and people just don't know what to do with it. If Apple can make a compelling product there the phone companies will want to sell it.
ps. Apple might choose to make a phone with no music capability... just to delineate the product. That gives people something to understand... and then they can release the combo products.
Exactly. How could a non-player break open the market without the big companies support and infrastructure? It's not a computer that people want to carry around. It is an extremely simple to use, not bulky, communication device.
Using VoIP and 3G technology would be great but what service is ready to provide it in the U.S.? Apple is not going to sell cell phones to a few hundred people in three or four U.S. metropolitan markets and make money on it unless there is a way to open up the VoIP market BUT VoIP is going to get smothered in Washington politics soon enough so don't plan on that being free or useful (especially if NET NEUTRALITY is eliminated). A 3G phone would spark interest only from the standpoint that none of the networks could provide national (never mind international) service. It is a loosing proposition but I agree, they would have to differentiate it from other products (if it were real). Again the supposed photographer did not say it was an iPod phone. S/he would have made that observation.
Another thing about this mystery phone. Have there been any licenses pulled by Apple for telecommunications devices? There have been patents for all sorts of neat things but this would fall into a new category for them, would it not. Therefore there would be a rash of legal moves going on.
I'm skeptical of the whole cell phone idea. Would there be more use for a home phone or walkie talkie type radio, satellite, a computer phone accessory, or something else? I just don't see Apple providing hardware that gets limited distribution, where you would have to sign up for a two or three year service plan with yet another unreliable service provider that within a year or two will be merged into yet another, and a .Mac account if you do not have it yet, and the possibility that you have to cancel an existing contract with penalty. It just doesn't add up. It would be the most expensive cell phone/package on the market.
ps. Apple might choose to make a phone with no music capability... just to delineate the product. That gives people something to understand... and then they can release the combo products.
Exactly. How could a non-player break open the market without the big companies support and infrastructure? It's not a computer that people want to carry around. It is an extremely simple to use, not bulky, communication device.
Using VoIP and 3G technology would be great but what service is ready to provide it in the U.S.? Apple is not going to sell cell phones to a few hundred people in three or four U.S. metropolitan markets and make money on it unless there is a way to open up the VoIP market BUT VoIP is going to get smothered in Washington politics soon enough so don't plan on that being free or useful (especially if NET NEUTRALITY is eliminated). A 3G phone would spark interest only from the standpoint that none of the networks could provide national (never mind international) service. It is a loosing proposition but I agree, they would have to differentiate it from other products (if it were real). Again the supposed photographer did not say it was an iPod phone. S/he would have made that observation.
Another thing about this mystery phone. Have there been any licenses pulled by Apple for telecommunications devices? There have been patents for all sorts of neat things but this would fall into a new category for them, would it not. Therefore there would be a rash of legal moves going on.
I'm skeptical of the whole cell phone idea. Would there be more use for a home phone or walkie talkie type radio, satellite, a computer phone accessory, or something else? I just don't see Apple providing hardware that gets limited distribution, where you would have to sign up for a two or three year service plan with yet another unreliable service provider that within a year or two will be merged into yet another, and a .Mac account if you do not have it yet, and the possibility that you have to cancel an existing contract with penalty. It just doesn't add up. It would be the most expensive cell phone/package on the market.
callme
Nov 2, 07:48 PM
There is no reason to put anti-virus software on your Mac!
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
How wrong you are.
This software actually protects for more than just viruses, it also removes trojans which HAVE been written for Mac. It also removes Windows viruses that you as a user can still pass on to other people. It removed 3 trojans from my machine, yes they were Windows trojans, BUT I will now not pass them on in emails, etc.
Be ignorant if you like, but one day soon we will all be caught out.
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
How wrong you are.
This software actually protects for more than just viruses, it also removes trojans which HAVE been written for Mac. It also removes Windows viruses that you as a user can still pass on to other people. It removed 3 trojans from my machine, yes they were Windows trojans, BUT I will now not pass them on in emails, etc.
Be ignorant if you like, but one day soon we will all be caught out.
elppa
May 6, 03:20 AM
Even if ARM DID get ahead, it wouldn't take Intel long to catch up... Then what?
ARM have been ahead in mobile for well over a decade. Intel haven't caught up yet, admitiely some of that is due to Intel not really trying.
ARM have been ahead in mobile for well over a decade. Intel haven't caught up yet, admitiely some of that is due to Intel not really trying.
elgrecomac
Apr 5, 04:43 PM
Look who is acting like Big Brother...
Jail breaking, as an act, is not illegal. Apple is flexing its influence as a it has a right to do. they are worried/scared that the jail breaking phenomenon is spreading to far and this seems like a desperate act.
AND they are worried about a secondary app market place. Hmmm, I'm no lawyer but is there may be an anti-trust case building against Apple.
And as for the warranty...it is a non-issue. Your fallback is to restore to standard iOS. o big deal.
It too more than 30 years but Apple is acting like Microsoft!
-----
IP4 4.3.1 jailbroken, of course. iPad 2, MBP 17"
Jail breaking, as an act, is not illegal. Apple is flexing its influence as a it has a right to do. they are worried/scared that the jail breaking phenomenon is spreading to far and this seems like a desperate act.
AND they are worried about a secondary app market place. Hmmm, I'm no lawyer but is there may be an anti-trust case building against Apple.
And as for the warranty...it is a non-issue. Your fallback is to restore to standard iOS. o big deal.
It too more than 30 years but Apple is acting like Microsoft!
-----
IP4 4.3.1 jailbroken, of course. iPad 2, MBP 17"
21stcenturykid
Aug 11, 02:16 PM
I wish apple would just hurry up and get the MBP upgraded i need one within the next 4/5 weeks before uni starts!! an with regards to redesign im all for it aslong as they dont put an integrated keyboard in like the MB cos its rubbish!!
so heres hoping for next tuesday!!!:D
so heres hoping for next tuesday!!!:D
doubleusn
Mar 28, 09:45 AM
Maybe not at WWDC, but I don't see them waiting till Fall to put out new iPhone hardware, hold iOS5 till then, maybe, but not new hardware.
They risk losing people to Android, WebOS, etc... as the remaining iPhone3GS people all start coming off of contract, and nobody will go iPhone4 knowing 5 is just months away.
This waiting around also gives 3GS users a few months to check out other products (new Pre w/WebOS, etc). Apple does not want people looking around during that break time.
They risk losing people to Android, WebOS, etc... as the remaining iPhone3GS people all start coming off of contract, and nobody will go iPhone4 knowing 5 is just months away.
This waiting around also gives 3GS users a few months to check out other products (new Pre w/WebOS, etc). Apple does not want people looking around during that break time.
MarcelV
Nov 22, 07:04 AM
.....but with a contract the phone is going to be extremely expensive.
Or it's just an Ipod with phone functionality (whatever the looks), and will cost 399.00. No contract, no lock in. Apple buyers already spend that money on hardware, and you can probably a pretty noce phone for that amount. So, why do you think it will be locked in with a carrier for x years? there is no need for, as they are not going after the commodity (100.00 and less) market on this. If they did, would be a big mistake.
Or it's just an Ipod with phone functionality (whatever the looks), and will cost 399.00. No contract, no lock in. Apple buyers already spend that money on hardware, and you can probably a pretty noce phone for that amount. So, why do you think it will be locked in with a carrier for x years? there is no need for, as they are not going after the commodity (100.00 and less) market on this. If they did, would be a big mistake.
Popeye206
May 4, 07:48 PM
Why is everyone getting so bent out of shape so early? First off, this is hear say and not officially stated by Apple yet. If that time comes, I'm sure there will be the option of a physical disk, or some way to make a bootable install disk using disk utility. I mean this thing is already 9 pages long of people flipping out that OMG!!! ITS A DOWNLOAD!!! Guess what? Microsoft offers windows as a download, and guess what? You can burn it to a physical disk.. I can't believe so many people are already jumping the gun on a RUMOR. It's a RUMOR until Apple officially announces it...
If we don't freak out and complain about every rumor, there would be nothing to freak and complain about!
Which reminds me, people who complain about complainers, really freaks me out. :rolleyes:
If we don't freak out and complain about every rumor, there would be nothing to freak and complain about!
Which reminds me, people who complain about complainers, really freaks me out. :rolleyes:
cybrscot
Apr 6, 02:38 AM
Interesting indeed!
VivaLaDricas
Apr 26, 02:53 PM
Don't see how this is news really. 2+2=4 webOS, Winmo7, etc.. whatever is on the sheer amount of devices Android is on will have larger numbers. Apple does things their way to make money on the hardware as well which = lower share.
Hopefully HP does something with webOS and MS makes strides in their mobile area so we have a lot of choice and not eventually 80%+ Android stuff.
Nothing against Android here, just saying most of this is obvious and a no sh** type of news.
Hopefully HP does something with webOS and MS makes strides in their mobile area so we have a lot of choice and not eventually 80%+ Android stuff.
Nothing against Android here, just saying most of this is obvious and a no sh** type of news.
miketcool
Nov 22, 01:50 AM
Did Apple say the same thing when someone challenged their Newton?
Stevamundo
Dec 14, 12:39 PM
No, we do NOT have any responsibility to protect Windows users from viruses. It is each computer user's responsibility to protect themselves. Even if every Mac ran antivirus, Windows users are still at a much greater risk from other sources of malware. The common sense approach is for every Windows user to run their own antivirus to protect themselves from malware, whether that malware comes from a Mac user or another source. Mac users do not have a responsibility to burden their computers with AV apps, just because some Windows users may be careless enough to run without AV protection.
It's ALL of our responsibility to try to contain viruses the best we can. I don't want to spread any viruses to my PC friends. That's called politeness.
However I agree, if you are a Windows user and you don't have any AV protection then you're just asking for it.
It's ALL of our responsibility to try to contain viruses the best we can. I don't want to spread any viruses to my PC friends. That's called politeness.
However I agree, if you are a Windows user and you don't have any AV protection then you're just asking for it.
motulist
Aug 7, 04:54 PM
Jobs finally delivered on his 3 Ghz promise! ;) :D :D
appletastic
Jul 30, 06:34 AM
Iphone? I just can't see it... It will kill their ipod sales - it will be like shooting themselves in the foot. The reason is that all phones are now free with a contract - we have difficulty in having any value in our phones nowadays.. if you had a free iphone with a contract which had ipod facilities then why would you buy an ipod? It just doesnt make sense.. unless they ONLY sell it sim free. If they do bring one out then i'll certainly buy one, but I am not sure that it is such a good idea... I'd rather they produced a phone/pda hybrid like the xda - I think that this would fit better into their existing product portfolio..
No comments:
Post a Comment