Don't panic
May 4, 01:14 PM
Laugh while you still can my naive foes. Death is coming for you and it is fleet of foot.
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-3/Angel-of-Death.jpg
you really should upgrade your diet. you look horrible.
rats are not good for you, you know?
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-3/Angel-of-Death.jpg
you really should upgrade your diet. you look horrible.
rats are not good for you, you know?
GregA
Nov 27, 06:59 PM
It will do everything Macs currently do (having the same power of a macbook); however it will really inspire people to use an iTV and the iTunes music store. It will just make it all so easy.
You will be able to show guests your iPhoto gallery directly on the pad or send it to your TV through your iTV at the touch of a button. Home movies or movie downloads will at your fingertips. No need to go cue them up in your den or office. Apple will try to make computer an integral part of your at home lifestyle whatever room you're in.
Out of interest - and since you already use a computer near your TV :). If a tablet can do everything you describe EXCEPT be a regular Mac too, would it still be of interest?
ie: If it allows you (as you say) to show guests your iPhoto gallery directly on the pad or on the TV, Home movies or downloads at your fingertips (no need to cue them in the office)... and if it costs less than half what a MacBook costs... is it still appealing?
What about if it can interface with MacMini to become a remote screen? (ie: do everything you say, but only when in the house)
You will be able to show guests your iPhoto gallery directly on the pad or send it to your TV through your iTV at the touch of a button. Home movies or movie downloads will at your fingertips. No need to go cue them up in your den or office. Apple will try to make computer an integral part of your at home lifestyle whatever room you're in.
Out of interest - and since you already use a computer near your TV :). If a tablet can do everything you describe EXCEPT be a regular Mac too, would it still be of interest?
ie: If it allows you (as you say) to show guests your iPhoto gallery directly on the pad or on the TV, Home movies or downloads at your fingertips (no need to cue them in the office)... and if it costs less than half what a MacBook costs... is it still appealing?
What about if it can interface with MacMini to become a remote screen? (ie: do everything you say, but only when in the house)
nutmac
Apr 21, 04:18 PM
I would say make it even smaller.
Mac Pro should be based on Mac mini, but with a choice of i7 or Xeon CPU, 6 user-serviceable memory slots, 2-3 expansion slots, and choice of 256 or 512 GB SSD. Complemented by multiple Thunderbolt port, external Superdrive, and Apple's own 5-bay DAS.
Mac Pro should be based on Mac mini, but with a choice of i7 or Xeon CPU, 6 user-serviceable memory slots, 2-3 expansion slots, and choice of 256 or 512 GB SSD. Complemented by multiple Thunderbolt port, external Superdrive, and Apple's own 5-bay DAS.
chrono1081
Apr 7, 01:54 PM
It's sad but it's starting to sound like that's exactly what anti-Apple people want. They're making it sound like Apple regularly colludes with suppliers. Maybe it does, but there's no proof, or at least Apple buying up the supply of touch panels certainly doesn't constitute proof.
Apple legitimately amassed a large cash reserve. Apple is using that massive hoard of cash to secure the best possible deals with component suppliers. If that's called anticompetitive, then I don't know what to say.
+1 its not anticompetitive, its smart. Apple actually MOVES these things and people buy them. It would only be anti-competitive if they bought a ton of them on purpose and never used them.
The amount of anti-apple on mac rumors is sickening anymore. Its like going to engadget.
Apple legitimately amassed a large cash reserve. Apple is using that massive hoard of cash to secure the best possible deals with component suppliers. If that's called anticompetitive, then I don't know what to say.
+1 its not anticompetitive, its smart. Apple actually MOVES these things and people buy them. It would only be anti-competitive if they bought a ton of them on purpose and never used them.
The amount of anti-apple on mac rumors is sickening anymore. Its like going to engadget.
azentropy
Mar 27, 08:32 AM
Don't know if this is true, but IF Apple was to "delay" an iOS 5 release, they would start leaking those plans now.
DHagan4755
Jul 22, 03:07 PM
Why does everyone want Apple to change the enclosure of the MBP when it's already perfect?
It's time for a new enclosure. The one used right now is from the PowerBook G4 days and goes back to 2003.
More importantly, the MacBook Pro's hinge design limits how far the display can open. Just about every other laptop has a screen that can open 180�. Secondly, while it's not horrible, the MacBook Pro display needs to have a wider viewing angle. It's VERY HARD to replace the MBP's hard drive. I don't want to see a magnetic latch. I would prefer to see something more in-line with the clamshell iBook, which snapped shut.
Those are just a few things.
Apple needs to create a whole new MacBook Pro to deal with heat issues alone. Having that battery inset in the middle must be a nightmare on the logic board designers. And Apple must be paying a fortune to repair the MBP because it's so intricate and hard to get into.
It's time for a new enclosure. The one used right now is from the PowerBook G4 days and goes back to 2003.
More importantly, the MacBook Pro's hinge design limits how far the display can open. Just about every other laptop has a screen that can open 180�. Secondly, while it's not horrible, the MacBook Pro display needs to have a wider viewing angle. It's VERY HARD to replace the MBP's hard drive. I don't want to see a magnetic latch. I would prefer to see something more in-line with the clamshell iBook, which snapped shut.
Those are just a few things.
Apple needs to create a whole new MacBook Pro to deal with heat issues alone. Having that battery inset in the middle must be a nightmare on the logic board designers. And Apple must be paying a fortune to repair the MBP because it's so intricate and hard to get into.
macenforcer
Aug 7, 05:19 PM
Thanks for raising the noise question. My thoughts exactly. Since there wasn't a case redesign, I suspect the noise specs to be similar to G5.
Anyone?
No way. The G5s main problem was the fan that cooled the HDs and the main motherboard chipset, it wasn't the cpu fans that were loud. This machine will be much quiter.
These new xeons require 1/4 the watts.
Anyone?
No way. The G5s main problem was the fan that cooled the HDs and the main motherboard chipset, it wasn't the cpu fans that were loud. This machine will be much quiter.
These new xeons require 1/4 the watts.
ECUpirate44
Mar 28, 09:37 AM
Glad to read about Mac.
No so happy to read about the lack of iPhone hardware till possibly Sept :rolleyes:. I think if their going to wait until September, then we really need to consider the possibility of an LTE iPhone.
No so happy to read about the lack of iPhone hardware till possibly Sept :rolleyes:. I think if their going to wait until September, then we really need to consider the possibility of an LTE iPhone.
Thex1138
Mar 26, 10:40 PM
iOS is centric to iPhone and I can't really see why the sudden shift from the status quo.
The scorching success of iPhone 4 hand set is really setting the pace.
The Lion revision of OSX will probably see much more inheritance of features and the ap-verse of iOS.
In my view the real buzz for iOS 5 might be the appearance of the whole swag of new touch gestures that Apple have been working on and previewed in the recent beta.
That along with the cloud, NFC and maybe 4G.
I think that the only thing that might trigger iPad 3 to market could be the success rate of OLED screen manufacture process. Currently I take it that for larger screens the death rate of OLED pixels seems too high.... Either that or a retina level of screen res might trigger iPad 3 to market by years end.
:)
The scorching success of iPhone 4 hand set is really setting the pace.
The Lion revision of OSX will probably see much more inheritance of features and the ap-verse of iOS.
In my view the real buzz for iOS 5 might be the appearance of the whole swag of new touch gestures that Apple have been working on and previewed in the recent beta.
That along with the cloud, NFC and maybe 4G.
I think that the only thing that might trigger iPad 3 to market could be the success rate of OLED screen manufacture process. Currently I take it that for larger screens the death rate of OLED pixels seems too high.... Either that or a retina level of screen res might trigger iPad 3 to market by years end.
:)
nastebu
Mar 29, 03:39 PM
Always looking at the negative side of things. Maybe a little radiation will lead to higher power densities.
These jokes just aren't funny.
It's too early for this. Maybe it will never not be too early for this, but please have some sensitivity for people who have friends/family/are themselves in affected areas.
Actually, Japanese companies manufacturing products in Japan is extremely inefficient due to the high cost, and due primarily to protectionism and racial pride. The Japanese domestic market is known for being highly inefficient.
Do you have any evidence for this?
These jokes just aren't funny.
It's too early for this. Maybe it will never not be too early for this, but please have some sensitivity for people who have friends/family/are themselves in affected areas.
Actually, Japanese companies manufacturing products in Japan is extremely inefficient due to the high cost, and due primarily to protectionism and racial pride. The Japanese domestic market is known for being highly inefficient.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Slurpy2k8
Apr 7, 02:10 PM
Ehh, purposeful or not (as a sabotage)...not good news for iPad competition:( Which isnt good news for us iPad users...Apple needs constant pressure to release revolutionary products.
Uh, no they don't. Where was the 'constant pressure' when they released the iPad? The iPhone? The iPod? Apple has released its most revolutionary products in markets with mediocre products, and have essentially created new markets with their products, which when released were not in competition with anything. Apple functions independently from 'competition'- They're not a reactive company. Your assertion has absolutely no historical evidence.
Uh, no they don't. Where was the 'constant pressure' when they released the iPad? The iPhone? The iPod? Apple has released its most revolutionary products in markets with mediocre products, and have essentially created new markets with their products, which when released were not in competition with anything. Apple functions independently from 'competition'- They're not a reactive company. Your assertion has absolutely no historical evidence.
mrj412
Nov 14, 01:24 PM
Should I continue to use the free Sophos or switch to the ESET paid AV?
On a iMac for business and home use.
Thanks for any insight.
I would recommend staying with Sophos. My company is in the process of purchasing Sophos for our Linux file servers on my recommendation. I tested several AV vendors and found Sophos to be best for our environment. Its extremely light on system resources and highly rated in antivirus tests.
The reason you haven't heard of Sophos is that they have been enterprise only. This is their first offering directly to consumers.
Giving the Mac version out free to consumers is very smart on their part. It gives them a larger install base which means they can find new malware faster. This then allows them to provide a better product to their enterprise customers.
Edit: Oh, I didn't see davegoody's post above that said this better until after I posted this.
On a iMac for business and home use.
Thanks for any insight.
I would recommend staying with Sophos. My company is in the process of purchasing Sophos for our Linux file servers on my recommendation. I tested several AV vendors and found Sophos to be best for our environment. Its extremely light on system resources and highly rated in antivirus tests.
The reason you haven't heard of Sophos is that they have been enterprise only. This is their first offering directly to consumers.
Giving the Mac version out free to consumers is very smart on their part. It gives them a larger install base which means they can find new malware faster. This then allows them to provide a better product to their enterprise customers.
Edit: Oh, I didn't see davegoody's post above that said this better until after I posted this.
snebes
Mar 30, 05:57 PM
I really hope they deploy some form of full screen iTunes in this build. Would be nice to see.
Only if a re-write is done on it first. Carbon-to-Cocoa conversions on all of Apples' apps should be of a higher priority.
Only if a re-write is done on it first. Carbon-to-Cocoa conversions on all of Apples' apps should be of a higher priority.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
nuckinfutz
May 8, 06:49 PM
I always have to laugh at things like this. It's akin to people complaining about having to pay $50 for 12 months of Xbox Live.
$99 a year is a pittance for MoblieMe; break that down over 12 months and it's roughly $8 a month. I don't know about the rest of you, but I know that I easily blow $8 a week on things I don't even remember from week-to-week, let alone setting $8 a month to the side.
It's the human way. We all know we waste money on other things. I have my sports websites that I often pay about $10 to keep up on current events. Being a working class bloke means that a certain amount of disposable income comes with the territory.
Everyone's needs are so different. If you have one device MobileMe isn't going to make much sense. If you have a couple of Macs, an iPod Touch, and iPhone or iPad then suddenly without MobileMe you're relying on web based tools (and the weakness they come with) or your spending a lot of redundant effort in data entry.
For me I'm at a point where I try to get things organized. My Safari bookmarks scream "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder" though I'm not an OCD person in every facet of my life. What this means in the context of MobileMe is that I can be out and get notified of of an interesting web address. I add it to my phone and voila before I get home the bookmark is on my Mac where it should be.
My motto is "never input data twice"
$99 a year is a pittance for MoblieMe; break that down over 12 months and it's roughly $8 a month. I don't know about the rest of you, but I know that I easily blow $8 a week on things I don't even remember from week-to-week, let alone setting $8 a month to the side.
It's the human way. We all know we waste money on other things. I have my sports websites that I often pay about $10 to keep up on current events. Being a working class bloke means that a certain amount of disposable income comes with the territory.
Everyone's needs are so different. If you have one device MobileMe isn't going to make much sense. If you have a couple of Macs, an iPod Touch, and iPhone or iPad then suddenly without MobileMe you're relying on web based tools (and the weakness they come with) or your spending a lot of redundant effort in data entry.
For me I'm at a point where I try to get things organized. My Safari bookmarks scream "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder" though I'm not an OCD person in every facet of my life. What this means in the context of MobileMe is that I can be out and get notified of of an interesting web address. I add it to my phone and voila before I get home the bookmark is on my Mac where it should be.
My motto is "never input data twice"
milo
May 4, 03:39 PM
What I don't understand is even if it's distributed through the Mac App Store, does Apple expect us to burn it on dvd or make a bootable usb?
I don't know if every mac user will even be able to do that, this may work for those looking to upgrade, but a fresh install will require dvd/usb..
There's no reason Apple couldn't make creating a bootable recovery disk as easy as the installation itself. Make it a menu item in the install software, then ask the user to insert the blank disk.
So will this mean waiting in long lines and trying to beat scalpers?
For something that's also available as a download? Extremely unlikely.
what makes you think that you can copy it to a USB drive or disc? I have disc for Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard. None of those disc can be copied, some of them can only be used on their original machine (or the exact model). the past 3 OSes can't be copied, and so far there's nothing to suggest we can just make backup copies of Lion.
The new version will be a download as opposed to the previous releases on disk. That's what makes me think it can be copied to other disks. And you probably can copy any of the previous OS install disks, I'm not sure why you assume it's impossible.
I don't know if every mac user will even be able to do that, this may work for those looking to upgrade, but a fresh install will require dvd/usb..
There's no reason Apple couldn't make creating a bootable recovery disk as easy as the installation itself. Make it a menu item in the install software, then ask the user to insert the blank disk.
So will this mean waiting in long lines and trying to beat scalpers?
For something that's also available as a download? Extremely unlikely.
what makes you think that you can copy it to a USB drive or disc? I have disc for Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard. None of those disc can be copied, some of them can only be used on their original machine (or the exact model). the past 3 OSes can't be copied, and so far there's nothing to suggest we can just make backup copies of Lion.
The new version will be a download as opposed to the previous releases on disk. That's what makes me think it can be copied to other disks. And you probably can copy any of the previous OS install disks, I'm not sure why you assume it's impossible.
kev0476
Jul 30, 08:24 PM
i get 3g data for 12.75 a month, unlimited.
Just with the sprint = cheapest internet.
That deal is through my dad's work. sprint seems very interested in salt lake city, best coverage in slc, entire university of utah is full reception, even underground.
but then again, i did just buy the samsung a-900 a month ago. wow, karma is still kicking my ass. (i've done some bad things in the past :p )
Just with the sprint = cheapest internet.
That deal is through my dad's work. sprint seems very interested in salt lake city, best coverage in slc, entire university of utah is full reception, even underground.
but then again, i did just buy the samsung a-900 a month ago. wow, karma is still kicking my ass. (i've done some bad things in the past :p )
tekmoe
Sep 16, 03:07 PM
Quick question,
Is it possible to order online and pick up in a specified store when available?
This would be the most convinient way for me to purchase when the new MBP's come out.
unfortunately, no. wish that option was available.
Is it possible to order online and pick up in a specified store when available?
This would be the most convinient way for me to purchase when the new MBP's come out.
unfortunately, no. wish that option was available.
Piggie
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Yeah a 1024 x 1024 icon is amazing considering I would bet a significant amount of 1024 x 768 monitors are still being used. Imagine not being able to view an icon in its entirety on a five-year-old monitor!
Indeed they are, and still being sold today.
They are called iPad's ;)
Yeah a 1024 x 1024 icon is amazing considering I would bet a significant amount of 1024 x 768 monitors are still being used. Imagine not being able to view an icon in its entirety on a five-year-old monitor!
Indeed they are, and still being sold today.
They are called iPad's ;)
ChickenSwartz
Aug 2, 01:46 PM
How about this for WWDC:
--Talk about how great the switch to Intel is going
--Praise developers work on Universal apps
--Talk about pro software
--Sit down and preview Leopard
--Talk about new Core 2 Duo
--Oh, by the way the iMac I have been using has the new Core 2 Duo
--Talk about how great the switch to Intel is going
--Praise developers work on Universal apps
--Talk about pro software
--Sit down and preview Leopard
--Talk about new Core 2 Duo
--Oh, by the way the iMac I have been using has the new Core 2 Duo
maclaptop
Apr 20, 07:00 AM
The nice thing this time around is that everyone seems to have such low expectations that Apple can only meet or exceed them :D
Very well said :)
Very well said :)
MikeTheC
Nov 26, 05:17 PM
NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
Well, it's a totally separate subject that's off-topic for this thread, but I would like to quote one single sentence from the related CNN news article.
The new rules will take effect Monday and expire in three years.
So, here's my question: If these rights are so important and have been recognized as being so important, then why would they want to deliberately sunset those same laws? Something here doesn't smell right.
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
Well, it's a totally separate subject that's off-topic for this thread, but I would like to quote one single sentence from the related CNN news article.
The new rules will take effect Monday and expire in three years.
So, here's my question: If these rights are so important and have been recognized as being so important, then why would they want to deliberately sunset those same laws? Something here doesn't smell right.
Sydde
Apr 19, 01:15 AM
I don't think anything will get done with the extreme left and extreme right fighting it out.
Where is this "extreme left" of which you speak? The furthest left we have in government is probably Dennis Kucinich, who is really barely left of center, AFAICT. The problem is that we have people who think compromise means " Just do what we want any nobody gets hurt." rollercoasters belong in the funpark, not the capitol.
An example (with simplified numbers):
Government Income: $1 billion
Government Spending: $1.50 billion
Total government debt: $5 billion
Please forgive me for being crass, but your math, you have to buy me a new calculator, it made my old one explode. ;)
Where is this "extreme left" of which you speak? The furthest left we have in government is probably Dennis Kucinich, who is really barely left of center, AFAICT. The problem is that we have people who think compromise means " Just do what we want any nobody gets hurt." rollercoasters belong in the funpark, not the capitol.
An example (with simplified numbers):
Government Income: $1 billion
Government Spending: $1.50 billion
Total government debt: $5 billion
Please forgive me for being crass, but your math, you have to buy me a new calculator, it made my old one explode. ;)
alvindarkness
Apr 10, 12:22 PM
I must say i just found this sight through google and had to join because of this post. I am a math teacher and the correct answer is 2
48/2(9+3) is a different equation than 48/2 * (9+3)
using Pemdas or the correct order of operations in the first problem
we first add whats in the parentheses (9+3)= 12
second step we multiply 2(12) =24
final step 48/24 = 2
the people who are getting 288
are adding (9+3) =12
then they are skipping an order of operations and going straight to division 48/2 =24
24 * 12 = 288
Multiplication doesn't have precedence over division in the order of operations. 1�2�3(1+2)�5*6�7*9 would have the parenthesis done first.. then the rest done left to right. So the next step is 1�2�3*3�5*6�7*9
Wolfram alpha visualises both of those as the same. i.e.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1�2�3%281%2B2%29�5*6�7*9
and
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1�2�3*3�5*6�7*9
I agree that the translation of the equation into ascii can cause cause some vagueness, or at least second guessing the intent of the author (was he short handing "all over" with "/" for example). But we have to work with what we have, and I definitely see it as a 288.
48/2(9+3) is a different equation than 48/2 * (9+3)
using Pemdas or the correct order of operations in the first problem
we first add whats in the parentheses (9+3)= 12
second step we multiply 2(12) =24
final step 48/24 = 2
the people who are getting 288
are adding (9+3) =12
then they are skipping an order of operations and going straight to division 48/2 =24
24 * 12 = 288
Multiplication doesn't have precedence over division in the order of operations. 1�2�3(1+2)�5*6�7*9 would have the parenthesis done first.. then the rest done left to right. So the next step is 1�2�3*3�5*6�7*9
Wolfram alpha visualises both of those as the same. i.e.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1�2�3%281%2B2%29�5*6�7*9
and
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1�2�3*3�5*6�7*9
I agree that the translation of the equation into ascii can cause cause some vagueness, or at least second guessing the intent of the author (was he short handing "all over" with "/" for example). But we have to work with what we have, and I definitely see it as a 288.
No comments:
Post a Comment