SiPat
Apr 28, 07:45 PM
This bit made me laugh so much, my sides hurt:
and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products
improve UI? other products? got to be joking.
and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products
improve UI? other products? got to be joking.
OpenLaszlo
Dec 1, 10:34 PM
Wallpaper, please! :D
lilo777
Mar 31, 01:43 PM
Soon we will only have one OS called iOSX
OSX 10.7 has iOS features that were sent "Back to the Mac"
iOS is getting OSX apps (Photoshop, Garage Band, iMovie, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Photo Booth.......)
OSX is getting apps originally designed for iOS
If you imagine iOS and OSX on a line
iOS......................|.....................OSX
They are moving in opposite directions toward each other.
......iOS................|..............OSX.......
Eventually, they will meet in the middle and we will have either 2 similar operating systems or simply a mix of the two.
I think Apple thinks that by taking the best of the two worlds they are creating a "better" user experience. I don't know if this is the case but I think that this is clearly the inevitable long-term outcome. Time will tell.
Yes, I want to have the same OS on my phone and my desktop.
OSX 10.7 has iOS features that were sent "Back to the Mac"
iOS is getting OSX apps (Photoshop, Garage Band, iMovie, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Photo Booth.......)
OSX is getting apps originally designed for iOS
If you imagine iOS and OSX on a line
iOS......................|.....................OSX
They are moving in opposite directions toward each other.
......iOS................|..............OSX.......
Eventually, they will meet in the middle and we will have either 2 similar operating systems or simply a mix of the two.
I think Apple thinks that by taking the best of the two worlds they are creating a "better" user experience. I don't know if this is the case but I think that this is clearly the inevitable long-term outcome. Time will tell.
Yes, I want to have the same OS on my phone and my desktop.
Hook'Em2006
Apr 1, 08:35 AM
Candace Swanepoel
more...
tombarnes
Oct 9, 04:43 AM
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/7130/picture1n.png
Wow! Link please.
Wow! Link please.
toast4
Jul 11, 02:07 AM
i'm going at 8 in hopes of getting one without waiting all night, hopefully it works out :D
more...
Blue Fox
Apr 27, 05:04 PM
Like it was said in other forms (and also by myself), it was blown hugely out of proportion, and a week from now, no one will even care about it anymore.
cjddrum1
Dec 11, 12:42 AM
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1819/61361565.png (http://intricedd.deviantart.com/art/DESKTOP-XV-189140931)
Click!
link?
Click!
link?
more...
Dwalls90
Apr 6, 02:23 PM
Don't know where you get that strange number from.
12 Petabytes = exactly 12 million gigabytes. That would be 500 megabytes for each of 24 million customers.
Wrong;
1 petabyte = 1*048*576 gigabytes
Google it
12 Petabytes = exactly 12 million gigabytes. That would be 500 megabytes for each of 24 million customers.
Wrong;
1 petabyte = 1*048*576 gigabytes
Google it
balamw
Apr 29, 05:09 PM
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/uikit/reference/UIDatePicker_Class/Reference/UIDatePicker.html
?
B
?
B
more...
DCBass
Sep 30, 11:40 AM
This is nice to know. I use Lotus Notes at my work on Windows. It's decent enough, but I hope that with this new version the online experience with accessing my work email remotely with my mac improves. As it is right now, it's basically unusable.
DCBass
DCBass
VolcanoGenesis
Apr 7, 06:32 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
I had battery drain with 4.3.1 until I turned off Ping and restarted my phone. Since then, good battery life.
Same here, very noticeable decrease in my iPhone 4's battery life after 4.3.1. After doing some research, I disabled Ping and everything is back to normal.
I had battery drain with 4.3.1 until I turned off Ping and restarted my phone. Since then, good battery life.
Same here, very noticeable decrease in my iPhone 4's battery life after 4.3.1. After doing some research, I disabled Ping and everything is back to normal.
more...
rjohnstone
Apr 7, 03:04 PM
Revenue for AT&T in the 4th Q of last year was $30+ billion. Excuse me if I have trouble believing that AT&T is looking to help their costs with a $50 increase.
Looks like somebody doesn't know how to read an annual report.
AT&T (the whole company) generated $31.36 billion in revenue for ALL of 2010.
(2010 Q4 total revenue (wireless and wireline) was $9.6 billion, with $6.6 billion of that allocated to capital expenses.)
Of the $31.36 billion earned in $15.18 billion came from the wireless unit.
The rest was from wireline (U-Verse) services.
Out of that $31.36 billion, AT&T had $20.3 billion in capital expenses.
That leaves just a hair over $10 billion for upgrades and any new R&D.
Their LTE roll out is expected to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $19 billion dollars.
So yeah... they need the money to expand while remaining profitable.
The question is, who is willing to pay it?
My guess is most will and AT&T knows it.
Looks like somebody doesn't know how to read an annual report.
AT&T (the whole company) generated $31.36 billion in revenue for ALL of 2010.
(2010 Q4 total revenue (wireless and wireline) was $9.6 billion, with $6.6 billion of that allocated to capital expenses.)
Of the $31.36 billion earned in $15.18 billion came from the wireless unit.
The rest was from wireline (U-Verse) services.
Out of that $31.36 billion, AT&T had $20.3 billion in capital expenses.
That leaves just a hair over $10 billion for upgrades and any new R&D.
Their LTE roll out is expected to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $19 billion dollars.
So yeah... they need the money to expand while remaining profitable.
The question is, who is willing to pay it?
My guess is most will and AT&T knows it.
munkle
Feb 14, 12:54 PM
If it is a complaint by mymemory does it really matter? :D
Good point ;)
Good point ;)
more...
cooknwitha
Aug 3, 07:34 AM
I host with Tinyhosts (http://www.tinyhosts.com/) and they have been near faultless. Not to mention quite cheap.
doofoo
Apr 6, 10:06 PM
Guess no one here has ever heard of block/byte level data de-duplication? 12PB goes a long way..
more...
saving107
Apr 6, 11:51 AM
12 Petabytes, is that all (Lame).
*Sarcastic Post
*Sarcastic Post
jrko
Apr 9, 11:49 AM
ok so hunting 10.5 disc that doesn't cost more than the machine in the first place!
Will 2Gb of ram solve my video streaming issues? I've been looking at ATI 9800 with 128mb ram and they are pretty cheap from a pc.
how do you go about flashing one?
Let the Cake Pops Set
Will 2Gb of ram solve my video streaming issues? I've been looking at ATI 9800 with 128mb ram and they are pretty cheap from a pc.
how do you go about flashing one?
norrismantooth
Mar 31, 10:13 AM
Does anyone else think this is a desperate attempt by Adobe to stay in the tablet game?
They're making software for a device produced by a company that wants nothing to do with them.
Does the software use Adobe's AIR?
They're making software for a device produced by a company that wants nothing to do with them.
Does the software use Adobe's AIR?
nizmoz
Dec 28, 08:38 AM
Well said. I was going to start typing a similar post but glad you did. The person that replied to the OP above saying IT people are clueless is 100% wrong as you are the one that is clueless. I run a IT department and there is no way MACs would ever become the Computer of choice over any Windows machine that has way more software for the enterprise than a MAC will ever see. And using Bootcamp is a waste of funds as PCs are cheaper. It always takes someone who has no clue about how IT works to say something like that.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Daedalus256
Dec 12, 09:36 PM
I don't see why not. They're practically the same except for the obvious differences like the AGP slot, etc. Hmmm, I'm not sure if that agp slot will give you troubles. I'd say go ahead and try it.
666sheep
Apr 10, 03:14 AM
should have searched first! Seems you need a PC to flash the card. I've only got 3 macs so thats out. I'll have to buy a pre flashed card if I want improvements
You didn't search deep enough ;) ATI cards can be flashed on a Mac using VNC and Graphicaccelerator. It's easy. Search for "flashing 9800 using VNC" on cubeowner.com for details.
You didn't search deep enough ;) ATI cards can be flashed on a Mac using VNC and Graphicaccelerator. It's easy. Search for "flashing 9800 using VNC" on cubeowner.com for details.
VulchR
Mar 28, 09:43 AM
Two comments:
GGJstudios
May 5, 01:55 PM
About LCD display pixel anomalies for Apple products released in 2010 and later (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4044)
No comments:
Post a Comment