mdelvecchio
Mar 23, 04:21 PM
Why don't they just use existing standards? RTSP, H.264/MPEG4 video and bonjour. There. No licensing required.
But no.
Apple pulls the "standards compliant" flag out of their asses only when it suits them. Boo.
if it was that simple, somebody else would be doing it. it isnt, and they arent.
But no.
Apple pulls the "standards compliant" flag out of their asses only when it suits them. Boo.
if it was that simple, somebody else would be doing it. it isnt, and they arent.
alent1234
Dec 27, 09:05 PM
You're talking about a whole country. As it is right now there are more iPhones in NYC than anywhere else. In order for this to be true it would mean tens of thousands of NYers, at least, are having their personal info stolen. Also, why only the iPhone? Wouldn't these thieves with all their stolen info just move onto another AT&T phone that costs just as much? Such as BB? Why hasn't any other telco stopped onlines sales of any of their high priced phones in NYC? Surely these thieves wouldn't just buy one phone.
To believe this you would have to jump through many conclusions, some being illogical.
NYC has so many ethnicities, people probably ship them to other countries
To believe this you would have to jump through many conclusions, some being illogical.
NYC has so many ethnicities, people probably ship them to other countries
Westacular
Mar 23, 05:31 PM
While they're at it, why don't they just integrate the whole Apple TV GUI into the TV and get rid of the crappy TV GUIs?
Motorola ROKR.
It's conceivable that they'd license AirPlay because, well, on the display end, it's simple and doesn't involve an interface. It's like plugging in a screen or speakers, only wireless. But there's no way in hell Apple is going to leave any aspect of the rest of the "Apple TV" user experience in another manufacturer's hands. Not again, and not when they can sell the Apple TV for only $100. If the interface shows an Apple logo and lets your browse your iTunes library, it's going to be a 100% Apple product.
Motorola ROKR.
It's conceivable that they'd license AirPlay because, well, on the display end, it's simple and doesn't involve an interface. It's like plugging in a screen or speakers, only wireless. But there's no way in hell Apple is going to leave any aspect of the rest of the "Apple TV" user experience in another manufacturer's hands. Not again, and not when they can sell the Apple TV for only $100. If the interface shows an Apple logo and lets your browse your iTunes library, it's going to be a 100% Apple product.
AFPoster
Feb 15, 05:43 PM
OSX has this tool built in. It's DigitalColor Meter in the Utilites folder.
This App is incredible!!!
This App is incredible!!!
more...
JDDavis
Mar 4, 05:04 AM
http://jddavis.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v0/p1055447075-5.jpg
bushido
Apr 19, 12:21 PM
Who cares about Expose. Give me Multi-Touch Gesturing like I have on iPad 2. 4-5 finger swipe accross apps, 4-5 finger swipe up to show the mult-tasking pane; 4-5 finger pinch-close to get to the home screen........What can beat that??????
i have it but never use it, to hard to do on that tiny screen. maybe if the 5th gets a 4 inch screen
i have it but never use it, to hard to do on that tiny screen. maybe if the 5th gets a 4 inch screen
more...
weldon
Apr 3, 12:49 PM
I couldn't agree more. There has to be a way to implement this. Though, getting the approval from APA, and MLA might be a problem. They want to sell their manuals, and this could, conceivably, cut into their sales.
EndNote and the like don't seem to have a problem. Just imagine an open XML database of references that could be transformed into different citation and bibliography styles using XSLT with a super friendly front-end that can hide the complexity of XML and XSLT for most people, but still leaves all the flexibility there for those that want it, all integrated into Word.
But back to Pages... I think this is an example of a really useful word processing feature that would absolutely ruin Pages. As soon as it tries to compete with Word, the product will be doomed. Apple needs to stay true to the conception of simple page layout app with some decent word-processing features. I still think the perfect comparison is to Microsoft Publisher on Windows. I could use something like that on the Mac.
EndNote and the like don't seem to have a problem. Just imagine an open XML database of references that could be transformed into different citation and bibliography styles using XSLT with a super friendly front-end that can hide the complexity of XML and XSLT for most people, but still leaves all the flexibility there for those that want it, all integrated into Word.
But back to Pages... I think this is an example of a really useful word processing feature that would absolutely ruin Pages. As soon as it tries to compete with Word, the product will be doomed. Apple needs to stay true to the conception of simple page layout app with some decent word-processing features. I still think the perfect comparison is to Microsoft Publisher on Windows. I could use something like that on the Mac.
ctdonath
Oct 6, 10:37 AM
iPhone Nano - YEAH!
I've got my iPad for all other iOS uses. Just want a Nano-sized widget to provide phone ability (esp. when not carrying the iPad). iPod Nano functionality & width/height, allow iPhone thickness, add cellphone module + Bluetooth.
iPhone is overkill for me now in light of iPad ... but I still need a phone. Back to basics, repackage.
I've got my iPad for all other iOS uses. Just want a Nano-sized widget to provide phone ability (esp. when not carrying the iPad). iPod Nano functionality & width/height, allow iPhone thickness, add cellphone module + Bluetooth.
iPhone is overkill for me now in light of iPad ... but I still need a phone. Back to basics, repackage.
more...
GekkePrutser
Apr 29, 04:07 AM
Thunderbolt just moved up on my list when I saw some of the new products coming out (http://www.sonnettech.com/news/nab2011/index.html).
Especially Gigabit Ethernet is a big plus for me, I was thinking Apple might be doing one but in case they're not then Sonnet seems to be working on one as well. Although the adapter pictured there is unfortunately very bulky so it's not a great choice to bring on the road. But it would be great for home to do backups quickly (I usually do a complete image once in a while and this would really help).
Also the external chassis in which you can just put PCI-e cards is really unprecedented for laptops. If the pricing eventually comes down to around $100 I'd definitely get one although I'm afraid it will be a lot more.
Especially Gigabit Ethernet is a big plus for me, I was thinking Apple might be doing one but in case they're not then Sonnet seems to be working on one as well. Although the adapter pictured there is unfortunately very bulky so it's not a great choice to bring on the road. But it would be great for home to do backups quickly (I usually do a complete image once in a while and this would really help).
Also the external chassis in which you can just put PCI-e cards is really unprecedented for laptops. If the pricing eventually comes down to around $100 I'd definitely get one although I'm afraid it will be a lot more.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 13, 01:27 PM
In a LOT of people's mind, it's broken until they put support for Exchange 2003/WebDAV back in.
Why would they do that? Support for Exchange 2003 is going away. Microsoft gave a roadmap 5 years ago which showed companies when to start planning Exchange upgrades.
Why would they do that? Support for Exchange 2003 is going away. Microsoft gave a roadmap 5 years ago which showed companies when to start planning Exchange upgrades.
more...
bushido
Apr 26, 06:49 AM
Why? You don't need high speed internet to put a USB stick in your computer, no need to wait for hours, just plug it in and be happy.
hes obvs talking about non physical distribution (hint: broadband). using a usb stick is just as "dumb" as using a disc, its still physical media, whats the difference if u plug in a usb stick or use a disc which is cheaper to produce ...
hes obvs talking about non physical distribution (hint: broadband). using a usb stick is just as "dumb" as using a disc, its still physical media, whats the difference if u plug in a usb stick or use a disc which is cheaper to produce ...
Giuly
Apr 29, 03:13 PM
I'm expecting both a retail DVD release as well as a downloadable release. I'll personally be getting the DVD for easier install on multiple machines.
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/1103/screenshot20110429at101.png
You know that DVDs are slow, right? Even this 5400RPM drive is 4x faster than the DVD would be. This is my gray install DVD, which I'm going to replace with Lion once it's out, btw. This works fine with USB sticks/SD cards and the regular Snow Leopard DVD as well, if you need it more often. Just make sure to get an USB stick that is faster than the DVD (~10MB/s).
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/1103/screenshot20110429at101.png
You know that DVDs are slow, right? Even this 5400RPM drive is 4x faster than the DVD would be. This is my gray install DVD, which I'm going to replace with Lion once it's out, btw. This works fine with USB sticks/SD cards and the regular Snow Leopard DVD as well, if you need it more often. Just make sure to get an USB stick that is faster than the DVD (~10MB/s).
more...
Darth.Titan
Apr 18, 02:15 PM
You might get $40 for it. The shells do make pretty good aquariums after all. :D
Eorlas
Nov 17, 10:40 PM
I'm pretty sure these are all of the covers where the tint wasn't "just right" for Apple's standards. If that's the case, I can understand why they'd care, but they shouldn't.
I hope nothing legal happens to him, all he's doing is making a business off of something that wasn't going to be used but people wanted that specific customization that Apple suggested they would provide twice, but didn't.
Good for him! Wish I could come up with something like that and pay for school...
I hope nothing legal happens to him, all he's doing is making a business off of something that wasn't going to be used but people wanted that specific customization that Apple suggested they would provide twice, but didn't.
Good for him! Wish I could come up with something like that and pay for school...
more...
mavherzog
Sep 1, 06:06 AM
My thought/hope is that the new functionality currently under wraps is improvements to the Finder and Safari.
NinjaHERO
May 2, 01:14 PM
It's just that black is slimming. ;)
more...
Linito
Dec 4, 01:36 PM
it's all about power and making the most with that power, most of the electric power of a computer goes to waste in heat dissipation a chip like this would improve a lot computer efficiancy:eek:
rjflyn
Apr 12, 06:19 PM
And how many Ipad-1 owners have yet to upgrade, those stats aren't given. If you are happy with what you have are you going to switch when you do upgrade, for the Average Joe probably not. I personally know just as many people who refer to Verizon as Whorizon as other who refer to ATT as the Death Star.
maflynn
Mar 21, 06:46 AM
Except for the iPad which seems to get the advertised 10 hours. I've never really believed apple when they claim x hours of battery life.
Its all puffery, the term used for advertisers to lie about products.
Its all puffery, the term used for advertisers to lie about products.
mavherzog
Sep 1, 06:06 AM
My thought/hope is that the new functionality currently under wraps is improvements to the Finder and Safari.
Fubar1977
Feb 19, 06:17 AM
Might be just me but...where`s Ballmer?
vrDrew
Mar 23, 06:01 PM
I think it could be a real winner all round.
More and more TVs are being sold as "Internet Ready." The problem is, on most of them the implementation and user experience is horrible. Half of them require a CAT5 wired connection to your network. And the other half need optional Wi-Fi adapter. Most consumers have neither the time, skill, nor patience to buy, install, and configure them.
Then there is the issue of usability. It is awkward and time-consuming to try and navigate text boxes using most TV remotes.
Apple licensing AirPlay as a means of letting TVs show YouTube content, plus stream photos, music, and video content on your home pc or iPad/iPhone would be a tremendous feature for TV makers to sell.
The interesting question would be whether or not Apple licensed AirPlay to device makers of Android or Windows phones and tablets. This seems much less likely.
More and more TVs are being sold as "Internet Ready." The problem is, on most of them the implementation and user experience is horrible. Half of them require a CAT5 wired connection to your network. And the other half need optional Wi-Fi adapter. Most consumers have neither the time, skill, nor patience to buy, install, and configure them.
Then there is the issue of usability. It is awkward and time-consuming to try and navigate text boxes using most TV remotes.
Apple licensing AirPlay as a means of letting TVs show YouTube content, plus stream photos, music, and video content on your home pc or iPad/iPhone would be a tremendous feature for TV makers to sell.
The interesting question would be whether or not Apple licensed AirPlay to device makers of Android or Windows phones and tablets. This seems much less likely.
jabbott
Mar 10, 09:44 AM
http://monogon.org/gfx/jonespeak.jpg
Jones Peak, Nathrop, Colorado
1/500s, f/8, 238mm, ISO 100
Canon Rebel T2i + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EF 2x Extender II
Jones Peak, Nathrop, Colorado
1/500s, f/8, 238mm, ISO 100
Canon Rebel T2i + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EF 2x Extender II
MacCoaster
Sep 22, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by avkills
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
No comments:
Post a Comment