xliver
Aug 16, 07:37 AM
I wish whoever posted this would get it straight - Microsoft is coming out with zune to compete with iPod. They are the one with the new product that will inevitably suck.
I don't understand why this post says that Apple is coming out with wireless capabilities to compete with zune - if nobody has wireless out yet, then there is not much a competition. And it certainly isn't Apple hoping to be the ones to catch up.
I don't understand why this post says that Apple is coming out with wireless capabilities to compete with zune - if nobody has wireless out yet, then there is not much a competition. And it certainly isn't Apple hoping to be the ones to catch up.
ajkrause
Sep 1, 01:25 PM
Just a general wonderment but why is it that upgrading the RAM on your made-to-order MacBook from the Apple Store online will run you up to $500 ($450 if you're a student) yet on the iMac and MacBook Pro the most it will cost you is $300 ($270 if you're a student)?
I don't buy my RAM from Apple usually but it just seems very off to me anyway. The only time I bought RAM from them is when I bought my MBP... the sales guy convinced me easily because by that time I was salivating so much over the MBP, I was willing to pay a few extra bucks to be able to take it home from the Apple Store fully loaded. I'm an impatient guy, what can I say?*:D
I don't buy my RAM from Apple usually but it just seems very off to me anyway. The only time I bought RAM from them is when I bought my MBP... the sales guy convinced me easily because by that time I was salivating so much over the MBP, I was willing to pay a few extra bucks to be able to take it home from the Apple Store fully loaded. I'm an impatient guy, what can I say?*:D
satkin2
May 3, 03:01 AM
So, you're saying that windows programs don't leave files on your computer when uninstalled? Installing and uninstalling a bunch of programs don't make your windows PC slow down? I must be using the wrong programs. Not that I'm saying that Mac's are perfect, but worse than windows? I hope not (I'm not a mac user... Yet)
No, I'm aware that in some cases the Add/Remove doesn't remove all of the traces of an app, that is a failing of the windows method. However it does attempt to remove the system files it creates when a programme is installed.
Once you get used to it and more into the Mac way, its fine to use an app to delete apps, however having come from an OS that has a built in process that attempts this it feels like a feature that is lacking.
Just as dragging an app into the apps folder fully installs, dragging it to the trash should fully uninstall, but it doesn't.
My point was that as the OSX method of dragging apps to the trash don't remove the whole programme, if this new delete process does remove the traces then it is an improvement.
Whether it does or doesn't I don't see anything wrong with this implementation. New Mac users who are familiar with iOS methods will find addoption easier. For those who don't like the method you can just carry on as they do now.
No, I'm aware that in some cases the Add/Remove doesn't remove all of the traces of an app, that is a failing of the windows method. However it does attempt to remove the system files it creates when a programme is installed.
Once you get used to it and more into the Mac way, its fine to use an app to delete apps, however having come from an OS that has a built in process that attempts this it feels like a feature that is lacking.
Just as dragging an app into the apps folder fully installs, dragging it to the trash should fully uninstall, but it doesn't.
My point was that as the OSX method of dragging apps to the trash don't remove the whole programme, if this new delete process does remove the traces then it is an improvement.
Whether it does or doesn't I don't see anything wrong with this implementation. New Mac users who are familiar with iOS methods will find addoption easier. For those who don't like the method you can just carry on as they do now.
islanders
Jan 3, 07:55 AM
I agree about the word processor. I never could understand why Apple didn�t offer a few more features to make AppleWorks useful.
I�m using FrameMaker, but that was discontinued for OSX on Mac.
Too many mine fields in Word.
I was set on a new lap top and Mini, but it�s going to be a difficult decision. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, and sometimes the Mac community isn�t as forthcoming and honest as they should be. It�s like they are more concerned if the stocks go up or down than providing an accurate assessment.
My first powerbook was good to me, but the climate/quality has changed, and I�m going to keep my options open.
I�ll wait and see what�s behind curtain number three, but not sure a Mac is the best choice for the average person.
I�m using FrameMaker, but that was discontinued for OSX on Mac.
Too many mine fields in Word.
I was set on a new lap top and Mini, but it�s going to be a difficult decision. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, and sometimes the Mac community isn�t as forthcoming and honest as they should be. It�s like they are more concerned if the stocks go up or down than providing an accurate assessment.
My first powerbook was good to me, but the climate/quality has changed, and I�m going to keep my options open.
I�ll wait and see what�s behind curtain number three, but not sure a Mac is the best choice for the average person.
pyramid6
Apr 26, 02:54 PM
I think that these two quotes from Tim Cook during the last Apple quarterly call, put the nail in the coffin:
"We've got the largest app store ..."
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
Isn't this what Amazon filed recently?
There are some interesting reads about trademarks on Wikipedia. I think one of the reasons Google doesn't want people to use the term "google it", is because it makes the trademark generic, and they can lose it.
"We've got the largest app store ..."
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
Isn't this what Amazon filed recently?
There are some interesting reads about trademarks on Wikipedia. I think one of the reasons Google doesn't want people to use the term "google it", is because it makes the trademark generic, and they can lose it.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:58 PM
My thoughts exactly!. As a owner of FCP 7 (and the rumord price drop for FCP X) How much will the upgrade cost? Price speculation time!
Don't know what the price will be but I'm nearly positive there will be no 'upgrade' price.
Apple seems to be moving to the app-store model where you pay less at first but then you pay the same for every upgrade.
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
Don't know what the price will be but I'm nearly positive there will be no 'upgrade' price.
Apple seems to be moving to the app-store model where you pay less at first but then you pay the same for every upgrade.
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
andrewbecks
May 2, 08:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
As I'm sure others have noted, this jus seems less efficient than CMD-delete. I suppose more options are good, and I get this is a transition towards a more pervasive touch interface, but for computers with physical keyboards, this leaves me cold.
I always wanted a CMD-delete action for Dashboard; this seems like a step back.
Agreed. I prefer Command + Delete, but I suppose it's nice to have options. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of the launchpad for OS X idea, but I'm sure it appeals to some people.
As I'm sure others have noted, this jus seems less efficient than CMD-delete. I suppose more options are good, and I get this is a transition towards a more pervasive touch interface, but for computers with physical keyboards, this leaves me cold.
I always wanted a CMD-delete action for Dashboard; this seems like a step back.
Agreed. I prefer Command + Delete, but I suppose it's nice to have options. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of the launchpad for OS X idea, but I'm sure it appeals to some people.
~Shard~
Sep 6, 09:01 AM
Maybe i am alone on this one....
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac.
You are alone on this one - the end of the G5 iMac has already happened, in fact it happened a long time ago when Apple introduced the first Intel iMacs. Hate to break it to ya, but G5 iMacs haven't been around for a long time, nor does a 24" G5 iMac even exist. :p :cool:
As for this new incarnation of the Intel iMac though, it totally depends on Apple's strategy. If they want to leave it as a desktop computer, yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to get much bigger. However, if they want to eventually incorporate a TV tuner and make it even more media-centric, and have it evolve into something else, then this may just be the beginning, not the end. :cool:
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac.
You are alone on this one - the end of the G5 iMac has already happened, in fact it happened a long time ago when Apple introduced the first Intel iMacs. Hate to break it to ya, but G5 iMacs haven't been around for a long time, nor does a 24" G5 iMac even exist. :p :cool:
As for this new incarnation of the Intel iMac though, it totally depends on Apple's strategy. If they want to leave it as a desktop computer, yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to get much bigger. However, if they want to eventually incorporate a TV tuner and make it even more media-centric, and have it evolve into something else, then this may just be the beginning, not the end. :cool:
Multimedia
Sep 1, 01:11 PM
Wow, this would be amazing. Screw my plan to buy an ACD if this happens. A MacBook and a 23" iMac would look awesome on my new glass desk. ;)All you need is an external keyboard, mouse and a $700 Dell 24" Display to exceed a 23" iMac Caitlyn. Your MacBook is just as powerful as today's iMacs are. Put a FW 400GB HD on the floor and you're good to go. ;)
mrapplegate
Apr 1, 08:43 AM
The new "year view" shows a heat map of events, ie. the more red it is the busier your day. ;)
I like that :D
I like that :D
Zzzoom
Aug 7, 01:39 AM
Blah, it should read "Mac OS X Leopard, introducing Panter 2.0"
I think apple would at least use a spellchecker... :p
I think apple would at least use a spellchecker... :p
prodigee
Feb 27, 10:00 PM
lol, I just realized how stupid my previous comment sounded :o
Haha its all good. We all say silly things sometimes. ;)
Haha its all good. We all say silly things sometimes. ;)
Rustus Maximus
Apr 21, 11:38 AM
It doesn't take long for crap politics to enter a thread....
I think that happened at post 1 in this particular case. Just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show...it's always fun! :)
I think that happened at post 1 in this particular case. Just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show...it's always fun! :)
iStudentUK
Mar 27, 10:58 AM
Oh? He chose to leave those two significant letters out of his post. :confused:
Some more cynical than me (impossible) might consider that disinformation. :rolleyes:
That guy in the MSN video rasmasyean linked is a bit of a douche. Especially when he says "if we take our toys home this is all over ... its pretty much us [USA]". This isn't a game and these aren't toys. A little under half the forces are US, Britain and France are next, but there are over a dozen countries that have committed forces.
Many of the countries in this coalition could do this alone- US, France and Britain all have airbases within range, attack subs/ships to fire missiles, reconnaissance planes, special forces to gain intelligence and easily enough fighters to attack ground targets and what is left of the Libyan airforce. However, it just looks like everyone is trying to make sure that no single country dominates.
With Iraq and Afghanistan the West need to be careful not to make this look like another invasion, but instead helping repressed people succeed in their revolution. Contributions and support from some Middle Eastern states (Qatar and the UAE have both sent fighters) help reinforce this. Making sure the UN and NATO are involved keeps this from becoming one country attacking another and hopefully avoids more hatred targeted towards the West.
Some more cynical than me (impossible) might consider that disinformation. :rolleyes:
That guy in the MSN video rasmasyean linked is a bit of a douche. Especially when he says "if we take our toys home this is all over ... its pretty much us [USA]". This isn't a game and these aren't toys. A little under half the forces are US, Britain and France are next, but there are over a dozen countries that have committed forces.
Many of the countries in this coalition could do this alone- US, France and Britain all have airbases within range, attack subs/ships to fire missiles, reconnaissance planes, special forces to gain intelligence and easily enough fighters to attack ground targets and what is left of the Libyan airforce. However, it just looks like everyone is trying to make sure that no single country dominates.
With Iraq and Afghanistan the West need to be careful not to make this look like another invasion, but instead helping repressed people succeed in their revolution. Contributions and support from some Middle Eastern states (Qatar and the UAE have both sent fighters) help reinforce this. Making sure the UN and NATO are involved keeps this from becoming one country attacking another and hopefully avoids more hatred targeted towards the West.
Dagless
Mar 22, 04:17 PM
Superb! I hope they keep it alive until flash chips gets cheaper and the storage increases. I use my old 5.5G to store my videos, leaving my iPod touch with the music.
pope
Jan 13, 09:28 AM
introducing...MacBook Error
April Dancer
Aug 17, 04:29 AM
i dont really think the ipod needs to be updated.
its great the way it is, and it hasnt even been a year since it was released!
why are you all on this idea of an ipod update?
the ipod isnt a computer that needs a new processor and faster components.
mp3 files just play.
Because they introduced video playback capability, that's why. I travel and this iPod has meant that I don't have to drag around countless dvds to while away hotel room evenings. I love it, but ultimately, the screen is ever so slightly too small (not by much, I'm not asking plasma screen here!) and I need more storage. I know I could go and buy an Archos or some such other brand but I really don't want to do that, and I'm very sure that Apple don't want me to either.
If it was still purely an mp3 player I would totally agree with you. Besides, 10 months+ with no update is a long time in the life cycle of an iPod. Only going by previous form. :)
its great the way it is, and it hasnt even been a year since it was released!
why are you all on this idea of an ipod update?
the ipod isnt a computer that needs a new processor and faster components.
mp3 files just play.
Because they introduced video playback capability, that's why. I travel and this iPod has meant that I don't have to drag around countless dvds to while away hotel room evenings. I love it, but ultimately, the screen is ever so slightly too small (not by much, I'm not asking plasma screen here!) and I need more storage. I know I could go and buy an Archos or some such other brand but I really don't want to do that, and I'm very sure that Apple don't want me to either.
If it was still purely an mp3 player I would totally agree with you. Besides, 10 months+ with no update is a long time in the life cycle of an iPod. Only going by previous form. :)
carve
Feb 5, 01:05 PM
Soon to be my first car...2001 Volvo S60 :)
http://www.featuredcars.com/images/full-2001-Volvo-S60_15366_1.jpg
http://www.featuredcars.com/images/full-2001-Volvo-S60_15366_1.jpg
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
timbloom
Mar 24, 01:14 PM
This would be great, but we all know Apple and the likelihood of this happening is beyond slim. I would think it would be more likely that Apple would just offer a wider range of CTO GPU options in their machines.
Baseline
Nov 15, 12:21 PM
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
I'm glad you admit that PHP doesn't count :)
But to answer your question: There are situations where vectorization and multi-threading/processing are both applicable. However, vectorization *tends* to work on chunks of data that are not dependent on each other, but simliar. Say, you have four integers, and you need to double them all. You could vectorize that, and it'd be a lot cheaper that spawning additional threads to do each multiplication.
However, take Word for example. I don't know how it works, but let's assume that the main editor is one thread, and the real-time spell/grammar checker is a separate thread. Those two tasks are not at all the same, so you couldn't vectorize that, but you could very easily multi-thread it.
To bring it back to my cake example, let's say you had to crack four eggs. It would make sense to vectorize that, crack all four at the same time. But then let's say you have to crack one egg, pour 500ml of milk, and measure 250g of flour. You wouldn't vectorize that, you'd multi-thread it.
I'm glad you admit that PHP doesn't count :)
But to answer your question: There are situations where vectorization and multi-threading/processing are both applicable. However, vectorization *tends* to work on chunks of data that are not dependent on each other, but simliar. Say, you have four integers, and you need to double them all. You could vectorize that, and it'd be a lot cheaper that spawning additional threads to do each multiplication.
However, take Word for example. I don't know how it works, but let's assume that the main editor is one thread, and the real-time spell/grammar checker is a separate thread. Those two tasks are not at all the same, so you couldn't vectorize that, but you could very easily multi-thread it.
To bring it back to my cake example, let's say you had to crack four eggs. It would make sense to vectorize that, crack all four at the same time. But then let's say you have to crack one egg, pour 500ml of milk, and measure 250g of flour. You wouldn't vectorize that, you'd multi-thread it.
YS2003
Oct 23, 10:59 PM
I hope Apple will get this done this week. I see "when C2D lappy come out" threads repeatedly (mostly by new members). With the update, we will change that line of thread into the buyer's remorse threads from the people who bought CoreDuo MBP. That would be good for a change.
AlphaDogg
Feb 20, 10:43 PM
now not to start a ppc vs intel flame war. but if it serves his purposes just fine why would he switch? for example my MDD works amazingly well and if it had a better graphics card it would be my main machine; why? because when you run software that is optimized for ppc (and most pro apps still are) they are blazing fast. as far as i can recall i could run fcp at a speed that rivaled my 13 mbp (before its gfx card died). anyway don't take this personally :P just pointing out a fact.
(if this starts a flame war i will seriously smack myself XD :p)
K. Flame war=over
(if this starts a flame war i will seriously smack myself XD :p)
K. Flame war=over
walshlink
Mar 28, 03:00 AM
Really newbie? You logged in to tell me that?
I guess you missed the point.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Get a life
I guess you missed the point.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Get a life
No comments:
Post a Comment