SamEdwards
May 13, 05:45 PM
I was looking into the MicroCell because I get tons of dropped calls in my apartment even though I have 4/5 bars. The AT&T employee told me that the Edge network is much less crowded in our area, Santa Monica, CA so you get far less dropped calls. Go to /settings/general/network and turn 'Enable 3G' off.
So far so good.
Since the majority of my problems are at home and I have wifi here it's a reasonable short term solution while they build more towers in our area later this year. Of course I can always turn 3G back on when I'm away from home and want to use the internet capabilities of the phone.
Love to know how it works for others.
Cheers,
Sam
So far so good.
Since the majority of my problems are at home and I have wifi here it's a reasonable short term solution while they build more towers in our area later this year. Of course I can always turn 3G back on when I'm away from home and want to use the internet capabilities of the phone.
Love to know how it works for others.
Cheers,
Sam
gnasher729
Oct 28, 01:19 PM
Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6).Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.
jchung
Mar 18, 11:17 AM
I've never once tethered or hotspotted yet my usage for last month was over 9GB....this is just normal iPhone usage for me, they better not automatically change me to the tiered plan. :mad:
Check out this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
Its a long running problem for a lot of people. AT&T's accounting of data usage has been messed up for quite some time. I don't see how AT&T can justify any claim against someone when they can't correctly account for data usage.
Check out this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
Its a long running problem for a lot of people. AT&T's accounting of data usage has been messed up for quite some time. I don't see how AT&T can justify any claim against someone when they can't correctly account for data usage.
totoum
Apr 13, 11:58 AM
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
skunk
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Presumably this is/was the selfsame containment building which was supposed to contain the pressurised radioactive steam which was vented from the reactor. The billowing cloud is described elsewhere as "vapour", i.e. "steam". Seems difficult to reconcile the picture with public statements about a "tiny" amount of radioactive material being released.
r0k
Apr 5, 10:14 PM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 08:10 PM
I didn't expect some sort of Spanish inquisition :eek:
Bingo!
Bingo!
adamfilip
Sep 26, 07:37 AM
im hoping that apple has optimized leopard to be able to assign certain applications to certain cores. just like what some of the other posters have said
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
flopticalcube
Mar 25, 10:21 AM
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
On what authority do claim to decide the mental instability of another? You both believe in unprovable fantasies so you are both delusional.
On what authority do claim to decide the mental instability of another? You both believe in unprovable fantasies so you are both delusional.
chrono1081
Apr 20, 08:37 PM
Go to Folder Option, select View pane, check "Show hidden files, folders and drives". Click Apply. Windows worked like this for decades.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
henrikrox
Apr 20, 08:56 PM
Ive had macs sine the late 90's, ipad, all iphones etc.
But this summer im getting the galaxy s2. But i like to customize stuff. I feel the iphone is generic. Everyone is the same with a different background.
I feel they can do so much more with their os. And yes apple fanboys will say just wait for ios 5.0. Problem is we have this disucussion last year to.
Also with honeycomb android actually made a tablet os. I hate that theipad is just a scaled version of the iphone os. Use the screenspace.
Dont get me wrong. I love apple. But they have their shortcomings. Dunno why the iphone 5 (rumors) will get delayed. Then android will get a surge the next months.
Also i feel sorry for those who are mindeless zombies and just buy whatever the company makes. That goes for both parts ofcourse.
I jusr love the open feel of android. Play a 1080p mkv if i want. Download torrrnts. File system. Widgets, cusromaztion. And i love the apple ecosystem, just not how closed the experienced gets.
I just hope we can respect people for having different taste, and jusr enjoy our purchase. And dont pick on eachother
But this summer im getting the galaxy s2. But i like to customize stuff. I feel the iphone is generic. Everyone is the same with a different background.
I feel they can do so much more with their os. And yes apple fanboys will say just wait for ios 5.0. Problem is we have this disucussion last year to.
Also with honeycomb android actually made a tablet os. I hate that theipad is just a scaled version of the iphone os. Use the screenspace.
Dont get me wrong. I love apple. But they have their shortcomings. Dunno why the iphone 5 (rumors) will get delayed. Then android will get a surge the next months.
Also i feel sorry for those who are mindeless zombies and just buy whatever the company makes. That goes for both parts ofcourse.
I jusr love the open feel of android. Play a 1080p mkv if i want. Download torrrnts. File system. Widgets, cusromaztion. And i love the apple ecosystem, just not how closed the experienced gets.
I just hope we can respect people for having different taste, and jusr enjoy our purchase. And dont pick on eachother
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
MykeHamilton
Apr 28, 08:15 AM
This is because they have continued to put time and money in to iOS and not Mac. They have been lazy and done practically done nothing with desktops and their notebooks. They need to start putting emphasis on to Macs now.
blackburn
Apr 9, 04:29 PM
Real gamers won't use apple gear (for gaming at least). I don't really like the online game craze. You can't borrow games from friends or even trade them (yeah more profit for the industry).
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
kazmac
Apr 28, 07:50 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
I used to think like you until I bought an iPad last week.
> I don't miss many sites as I hate flash so no agreement there.
the file system > hope that will be sorted out eventually, but it's not so much of an annoyance for me to worry about it. I'm enjoying my iPad, not forgetting it will cut my phone bill down $60 since it killed my interest in the iPhone. :)
As far as the article 188% is impressive.
As far as Mac sales, hey millions are being sold every quarter. That's insane. I don't ever remember Mac sales like this when I first turned to Macs in the mid 90s.
I used to think like you until I bought an iPad last week.
> I don't miss many sites as I hate flash so no agreement there.
the file system > hope that will be sorted out eventually, but it's not so much of an annoyance for me to worry about it. I'm enjoying my iPad, not forgetting it will cut my phone bill down $60 since it killed my interest in the iPhone. :)
As far as the article 188% is impressive.
As far as Mac sales, hey millions are being sold every quarter. That's insane. I don't ever remember Mac sales like this when I first turned to Macs in the mid 90s.
Westside guy
Apr 20, 06:03 PM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
This is becoming more true, but historically hasn't been the case. Fortunately Microsoft eventually learned its lessons from Slammer and the like.
This is becoming more true, but historically hasn't been the case. Fortunately Microsoft eventually learned its lessons from Slammer and the like.
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
latergator116
Mar 20, 08:11 PM
Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
KingYaba
Aug 29, 06:27 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
arkitect
Mar 28, 05:01 AM
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
Such as?
Loving one another?
Finding happiness in a same sex relationship?
So very christian of you� so very typical.
Such as?
Loving one another?
Finding happiness in a same sex relationship?
So very christian of you� so very typical.
Piggie
Apr 9, 10:15 AM
Until Apple give us some physical controls (buttons, Joysticks etc) for use in games that need it, this is simply never ever going to work.
It's just a fundamental need, and no amount of screen res, CPU/GPU power, memory or anything else is going to fix this.
It's like taking the steering wheel and foot pedals out of a sports car and fitting in a touch screen, with no feedback and a smooth surface.
They car will be hopeless, and never be any good, no matter how great the engine, body or anything else.
Humans need physical controls, and why on earth do you want your hands/fingers to be overlapping the screen you are looking at (the display)
For same game, yes, a touch screen is great and really suits the style of game, for many other types of games, it's totally hopeless and will always be hopeless.
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
It's just a fundamental need, and no amount of screen res, CPU/GPU power, memory or anything else is going to fix this.
It's like taking the steering wheel and foot pedals out of a sports car and fitting in a touch screen, with no feedback and a smooth surface.
They car will be hopeless, and never be any good, no matter how great the engine, body or anything else.
Humans need physical controls, and why on earth do you want your hands/fingers to be overlapping the screen you are looking at (the display)
For same game, yes, a touch screen is great and really suits the style of game, for many other types of games, it's totally hopeless and will always be hopeless.
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
neiltc13
Apr 9, 07:03 PM
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 02:04 PM
Why do you say that it has to be the Judaeo-Christian God? If there is a god or creator-being, the chances of this god being the Judaeo-Christian God is infinitesimal.
lol, in all of the classical arguments for the existence of God, God was defined as being in the possession of the same attributes as he is in the Bible. If you could define God in any way you wished then I'm sure it'd be a lot easier to prove his existence.
The Bible, as you may or may not know, is the basis for Christianity, and the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism.
Hindu theologians take a different approach to these ontological problems.
lol, in all of the classical arguments for the existence of God, God was defined as being in the possession of the same attributes as he is in the Bible. If you could define God in any way you wished then I'm sure it'd be a lot easier to prove his existence.
The Bible, as you may or may not know, is the basis for Christianity, and the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism.
Hindu theologians take a different approach to these ontological problems.
