dyler
Oct 7, 06:49 PM
Oh so now we have Android. First it was the Palm Pre that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen, then it was this or that touch screen phone that was going to kill the iPhone and that did not happen. When Android first came out with the G1 that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen and now we have more Android devices killing the iPhone, not going to happen. This is a load of crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. Android is hard to develop for and is at least two years behind Apple at the moment, how is this going to happen? This is the stupidest prediction I have ever heard from people who don't like Apple for some reason that I cannot understand, let's stop predicting which device is going to be King and just see what happens!!! The main reason I say this will not happen is that Android is only being adopted by technophiles and not everyday people, the iPhone is being adopted by apple technophiles and everyday people, it is the everyday people that decide which device is king and they will not adopt Android unless the OS is completely overhauled in a different direction, people like my 63 year old father have an Iphone now and there is no way he would ever want or use an Android based phone. Tech analysts need to think of everyday people when they predict this crap and not techies who hate Apple for some reason or another!!!
TorontoLRT
Jun 21, 06:49 AM
^Ummmm... Is there any logic to that, or are you just "hahahaing" to get attention?
OllyW
Apr 28, 10:08 AM
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
Apple sold around 14.5 million Macs last year (2.94m Q2 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/04/20results.html), 3.47m Q3 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html), 3.89m Q4 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html), 4.13m Q1 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/18results.html)). The Global sales for computers was almost 351 million (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1519417).
I've done some research and still make it 4.1%. :)
Apple sold around 14.5 million Macs last year (2.94m Q2 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/04/20results.html), 3.47m Q3 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html), 3.89m Q4 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html), 4.13m Q1 (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/18results.html)). The Global sales for computers was almost 351 million (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1519417).
I've done some research and still make it 4.1%. :)
Multimedia
Sep 26, 06:09 PM
And the wait for 8 Core Mac Pros and Merom MacBook Pros/MaBook is on. Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing.It's also not just speed bumps. I want a MBP redesign that includes a better cooling system and an easy access HD Bay like in the MB. Lots of good reasons to be waiting. It's the IN thing to do right now. We're the IN Crowd. :Dat least the educated do not.... Well... it's amazing that now every dual core computer is obsolete, and every single core computer is like an Apple II compared to this.Yes but that 2.7GHz DP G5 of yours is a keeper. The fastest last classic G5 DP on the planet. Kudos to you for hanging on to it. If I were you I would NEVER sell it. Should become a family heirloom. Wish I had one.
xlambodog
Mar 18, 02:40 PM
To start off, I do not want to get intimate with the moral aspect of this. Everyone has their opinion.
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
Central Park Mall In Winter
Winter in Central Park,
Central-Park, Winter
central park spring wallpaper.
central park spring wallpaper.
central park new york at
central park spring wallpaper.
Winter in Central Park NY
new york central park
central park spring wallpaper.
central park nyc.
central park new york winter.
Central Park In Winter II by
central park spring wallpaper.
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
alhedges
Mar 18, 02:55 PM
If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
There's a binding arbitration clause in the TOS.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
There's a binding arbitration clause in the TOS.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:25 AM
What are tablets going to overtake? I just dont get it... Desktops? Laptops?
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
Got it, it's a definite prediction.
What are tablets going to overtake? Yes, desktops and latops. In 2020 the average person will buy a tablet as their dominant computer. Techies will still use traditional technology such as PCs, and specialists will continue to do so, but since there are FAR more average persons then such specialists and techies, the number of tablets sold in 2020 will exceed the number of traditional PCs. That's my prediction.
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
Got it, it's a definite prediction.
What are tablets going to overtake? Yes, desktops and latops. In 2020 the average person will buy a tablet as their dominant computer. Techies will still use traditional technology such as PCs, and specialists will continue to do so, but since there are FAR more average persons then such specialists and techies, the number of tablets sold in 2020 will exceed the number of traditional PCs. That's my prediction.
albinogoldfish
Mar 18, 03:10 PM
Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
desdomg
Mar 20, 05:51 PM
If you view debate as a means to some sort of winner and looser type outcome the I can understand that you would reach that conclusion. However, the merits of a good debate, particularly one where their are strong opposing views, lie in the illumination of many points of view.
bringing IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company. :)
The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.
It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?
bringing IMO, this whole discussion has deteriorated beyond any form of usefulness. However, it does reaffirm two points -- never discuss either politics ("laws") or religion ("right" and "wrong") in mixed company. :)
The recent direction of this debate should have been seen as a non-starter -- that is, neither side of the argument is going to win and thus it's pointless to continue.
It does seem somewhat newsworthy, however, that there have been a few reports that the PyMusique utility has stopped working. Apparently you can no longer complete the purchase authorization. Can anyone else confirm this (may or may not be true)?
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:47 PM
There, fixed it for ya (and the "'s too) ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
Evangelion
Mar 20, 09:44 AM
If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 06:23 PM
ddtlm:
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:34 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
skunk
Apr 24, 05:36 AM
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :) I know, you wouldn't have got so far if you weren't serious.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:19 AM
Isn't this misleading? It says 'shipped' not 'sold' so I assume basically it's a bogus report. You can ship all the crappy tablets you want..doesn't mean they sold.
arguably yes,,,, but it's hard to get 'sold' data. that is 10 manufacturers may ship to lots of distributors who sell to thousands retails or re-distributors (enterprise) who may sell them again. To get 'sold' data is difficult, so they get 'shipped' data instead and just throw in a margin of error.
It's better to focus on the *trend* then dismiss a report because number may be slightly off (stats are never entirely accurate and can be messed with)
P.
arguably yes,,,, but it's hard to get 'sold' data. that is 10 manufacturers may ship to lots of distributors who sell to thousands retails or re-distributors (enterprise) who may sell them again. To get 'sold' data is difficult, so they get 'shipped' data instead and just throw in a margin of error.
It's better to focus on the *trend* then dismiss a report because number may be slightly off (stats are never entirely accurate and can be messed with)
P.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 07:48 PM
Ah, thanks.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
My comment was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
My comment was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
skunk
Mar 27, 08:51 AM
That's obviously ad hominem.Sometimes it's the homo that's the problem.
Stella
Feb 20, 09:22 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:13 AM
So this'll mean one of 3 things.
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc...
What I think will happen is that the "MacPro Mini" will have one 16x PCI-E slot, and maybe two PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would have two 16x PCI-E slots (for dual-graphics), and maybe 3 PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would also have four drive-bays for HD's (hot-swappable, maybe? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2600408#post2600408)), whereas MacPro Mini would have just two. MacPro would be all quad (starting from 2x 2Ghz, through 2x 2.33Ghz to 2x 3Ghz), whereas Mini would be 1x 2.33Ghz and 1x 2.66Ghz.
If they did something like that, I would buy one in a heartbeat. But MacPro would still offer substantial benefits over the Mini, so the people looking at the $1999 MacPro Mini would start to think "why not spend just a bit more, and get a MacPro with all these additional features?". We are already seeing that in iPods :).
Please Apple: You know this makes sense! There are LOTS of people waiting for the MacPro Mini!
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc...
What I think will happen is that the "MacPro Mini" will have one 16x PCI-E slot, and maybe two PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would have two 16x PCI-E slots (for dual-graphics), and maybe 3 PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would also have four drive-bays for HD's (hot-swappable, maybe? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2600408#post2600408)), whereas MacPro Mini would have just two. MacPro would be all quad (starting from 2x 2Ghz, through 2x 2.33Ghz to 2x 3Ghz), whereas Mini would be 1x 2.33Ghz and 1x 2.66Ghz.
If they did something like that, I would buy one in a heartbeat. But MacPro would still offer substantial benefits over the Mini, so the people looking at the $1999 MacPro Mini would start to think "why not spend just a bit more, and get a MacPro with all these additional features?". We are already seeing that in iPods :).
Please Apple: You know this makes sense! There are LOTS of people waiting for the MacPro Mini!
blackcrayon
May 2, 10:57 AM
Meh... if you're stupid enough to have open safe files checked.
Are you sure that is the end of it, just having safe files checked and this thing installs itself? I'm trying to figure out where this is happening (i tested it myself and all it did was unzip the .zip file, it didn't automatically launch the package installer and then click the Install button for me).
Are you sure that is the end of it, just having safe files checked and this thing installs itself? I'm trying to figure out where this is happening (i tested it myself and all it did was unzip the .zip file, it didn't automatically launch the package installer and then click the Install button for me).
Azathoth
May 2, 01:23 PM
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
Right. Not.
In OS X is also pops up when doing things like opening files (html documents), DMG images etc. Of course this is correct behaviour, but OS X and Win7 are *fairly* similar in terms of user prompts.
Right. Not.
In OS X is also pops up when doing things like opening files (html documents), DMG images etc. Of course this is correct behaviour, but OS X and Win7 are *fairly* similar in terms of user prompts.
I'mAMac
Oct 29, 10:08 AM
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
trrosen
Mar 18, 09:16 AM
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
I'm thinking the only proper response to someone violating a contract is to end the contract. (that is cut off your service) I don't think AT&T has a legal standing to say OK you broke our contract so we're going to unilaterally enter you into a new contract.
PS Something for all you "ITS MY DEVICE" people to remember. If you bought it on contract it's not your device until the contract has been fulfilled. Until then the sale is not complete and the Phone is AT&T's.
I'm thinking the only proper response to someone violating a contract is to end the contract. (that is cut off your service) I don't think AT&T has a legal standing to say OK you broke our contract so we're going to unilaterally enter you into a new contract.
PS Something for all you "ITS MY DEVICE" people to remember. If you bought it on contract it's not your device until the contract has been fulfilled. Until then the sale is not complete and the Phone is AT&T's.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar