LxHunter
Nov 14, 01:50 PM
Thanks, will stay with Sophos
ncl
Apr 11, 04:30 AM
To all the people arguing that the answer is 288 and not 2 and linked to the wikipedia page on the order of operations to prove their point: if you actually bothered to read the page you linked to, you would have seen this:
Some mathematicians hold that multiplication by juxtaposition (omitting the x sign, ex. 2(4+3) ) is a symbol of grouping. No fixed convention exists.
That's probably why Spotlight gives a different answer if you write the expression with or without the "*".
Some people will say 2, others will say 288 and it has nothing to do with their math skills but only with the convention they use.
To give the only right answer to the original question: don't write an expression in such a retarded way :p
Some mathematicians hold that multiplication by juxtaposition (omitting the x sign, ex. 2(4+3) ) is a symbol of grouping. No fixed convention exists.
That's probably why Spotlight gives a different answer if you write the expression with or without the "*".
Some people will say 2, others will say 288 and it has nothing to do with their math skills but only with the convention they use.
To give the only right answer to the original question: don't write an expression in such a retarded way :p
DotComName
Apr 20, 10:11 AM
hopefully this time Apple will put the antenna back inside the phone?
treblah
Aug 3, 01:31 AM
It's not scientific at all. No way in hell is it scientific. I should know, I'm a scientist, got a degree and everything.
:D
:D
~Shard~
Aug 11, 12:31 PM
I think he means it's a speed bump in terms of sales. Not technically. Though I may have him/her wrong.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I could see that being the case now that you mention it.
Most of the "goodness" isn't anything a laptop user will notice.
Quite true. Again, I was speaking from a technical perspective, but practically, yes, this is quite true.
Umm..technically you are right, but the the difference of 5-15% is not very significant, especially compared to Conroe's 40% jump. Merom's power is limited by slower FSB which is not going to see any change anytime soon. I just hope they fix current MBP issues first like battery life, underclocked graphic card and Superdrives. CPU upgrade is just a ritual Apple has to perform to stay in the league.
Gotcha, and agreed - see above. ;) :D
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I could see that being the case now that you mention it.
Most of the "goodness" isn't anything a laptop user will notice.
Quite true. Again, I was speaking from a technical perspective, but practically, yes, this is quite true.
Umm..technically you are right, but the the difference of 5-15% is not very significant, especially compared to Conroe's 40% jump. Merom's power is limited by slower FSB which is not going to see any change anytime soon. I just hope they fix current MBP issues first like battery life, underclocked graphic card and Superdrives. CPU upgrade is just a ritual Apple has to perform to stay in the league.
Gotcha, and agreed - see above. ;) :D
dextertangocci
Jul 30, 01:46 AM
my t-mobile contract expires in september..
maybe along with the mac pros, new macbook pros, intel core 2 duo, movies on iTunes, WWDC will bring about the iPhone and no-touch full screen video iPod..
*yeah right*
You forgot to ad in the 13.3" MBP. lol.
maybe along with the mac pros, new macbook pros, intel core 2 duo, movies on iTunes, WWDC will bring about the iPhone and no-touch full screen video iPod..
*yeah right*
You forgot to ad in the 13.3" MBP. lol.
robertgenito
Nov 3, 02:23 PM
The next phases of Sopho's agenda:
1) create more "viruses" and get as much media hype as possible. This will ensure a larger demand of their free product.
2) once a significant number of users are registered and using their free product, force them to update their application--for new virus protection. this new update will lock them into a 30-day trial mode :) users will have to pay $60 per year in order to stay protected.
I'm not worried at all honestly. I'm just even happier to be running a unix-based operating system :)
1) create more "viruses" and get as much media hype as possible. This will ensure a larger demand of their free product.
2) once a significant number of users are registered and using their free product, force them to update their application--for new virus protection. this new update will lock them into a 30-day trial mode :) users will have to pay $60 per year in order to stay protected.
I'm not worried at all honestly. I'm just even happier to be running a unix-based operating system :)
eemsTV
Apr 20, 12:59 AM
How many people think this is some elaborate scheme to get people to think it will come out in the fall, when they might be setting people up for a surprise with the release of iphone 4 -white as the new ip5?
SiliconAddict
Nov 23, 12:46 PM
Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.
o.O Mactracker has no information on this. Do you have links? I would be very interested in seeing a pict of it.
o.O Mactracker has no information on this. Do you have links? I would be very interested in seeing a pict of it.
treblah
Aug 3, 12:12 AM
Merom:
Twice the Battery life.
You have said this before and it is TOTALLY WRONG if you are comparing the Merom to Yonah (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2711&p=4). The first slide is directly from Intel's Spring Developer Conference. Consistent battery does not mean 2X.
Twice the Battery life.
You have said this before and it is TOTALLY WRONG if you are comparing the Merom to Yonah (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2711&p=4). The first slide is directly from Intel's Spring Developer Conference. Consistent battery does not mean 2X.
Willis
Aug 11, 09:06 AM
So does that mean MacWorld Paris?
It sure does. Quite exciting really. I think all consumer products will get Core 2 Duo (merom + conroe) in September. Although, seeing as Merom is socket compatable with the current line up, I dont think we will see a Conroe in the iMac.
It sure does. Quite exciting really. I think all consumer products will get Core 2 Duo (merom + conroe) in September. Although, seeing as Merom is socket compatable with the current line up, I dont think we will see a Conroe in the iMac.
CalBoy
May 3, 03:39 PM
I see no reason why 99, 99.5, and 100 are easier to track than 37.2, 37.5, and 37.7. As you said, we accept body temp to be 98.6 and 37.0 in Celsius. If decimals are difficult to remember, then clearly we should pick the scale that represents normal body temp as an integer, right? ;)
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
mrj412
Nov 14, 01:24 PM
Should I continue to use the free Sophos or switch to the ESET paid AV?
On a iMac for business and home use.
Thanks for any insight.
I would recommend staying with Sophos. My company is in the process of purchasing Sophos for our Linux file servers on my recommendation. I tested several AV vendors and found Sophos to be best for our environment. Its extremely light on system resources and highly rated in antivirus tests.
The reason you haven't heard of Sophos is that they have been enterprise only. This is their first offering directly to consumers.
Giving the Mac version out free to consumers is very smart on their part. It gives them a larger install base which means they can find new malware faster. This then allows them to provide a better product to their enterprise customers.
Edit: Oh, I didn't see davegoody's post above that said this better until after I posted this.
On a iMac for business and home use.
Thanks for any insight.
I would recommend staying with Sophos. My company is in the process of purchasing Sophos for our Linux file servers on my recommendation. I tested several AV vendors and found Sophos to be best for our environment. Its extremely light on system resources and highly rated in antivirus tests.
The reason you haven't heard of Sophos is that they have been enterprise only. This is their first offering directly to consumers.
Giving the Mac version out free to consumers is very smart on their part. It gives them a larger install base which means they can find new malware faster. This then allows them to provide a better product to their enterprise customers.
Edit: Oh, I didn't see davegoody's post above that said this better until after I posted this.
ChrisA
Aug 4, 12:19 PM
My best gues is that Apple will make their entire lineup 64 bit. This should be easy for them to do and at the same time will give them a way to distance themselves from all the other PC makers. Apple would have a very easy to understand advertizing statment "All macs are 64 bit" Easy to understand is key.
aldejesus
Mar 30, 11:05 PM
Good catch, I thought I saw 15"
I was sharing this because I found it interesting, its supposed to be just 384MB shared. Just thinking if Lion enables more memory shared??:rolleyes:
I was sharing this because I found it interesting, its supposed to be just 384MB shared. Just thinking if Lion enables more memory shared??:rolleyes:
mcrain
Apr 15, 01:43 PM
I hate to pull this card, but my livelihood depends on trading and investing. I'm a small time player, so I can't afford to make mistakes. I have over 95% of my money "in the game" at any time. I can tell you that based on my experience, most of what you described simply isn't true. I don't know how else to say it. If I tried to respond point by point, it would take all day to explain all the concepts clearly.
Which "game"? Are you "trading and investing" in companies by purchasing shares in IPOs, or are you "trading and investing" on Wall St.? If it is the latter, then basically you are buying and selling ownership interests in companies, which has almost no affect on underlying companies.
Won't higher capital gains reduce your "take home" earned from trading in the secondary market? If so, don't hedge funds and the like start investing in more risk taking?
Higher taxes does not spur innovation. If anything, it would spur more risk taking because hedge fund and the like would have to make up for that difference in revenue.
What do you think is/was the riskier investment? Investing in GE or investing in a start-up like Google? Innovation? I'm fairly certain buying 100 shares of GE from my broker didn't innovate a new lightbulb, but Google has innovated and expanded with the capital it received in its IPO. If you are trying to increase your rate of return over what you get from your GE shares, would you invest in AT&T or a little start-up called Chef John Smith, Inc. because you think he's an up and coming talent? One has a big upside, but also a lot of risk.
If the goal is to increase rate of return of an investment portfolio, your only choices are to be better at picking good stocks, or to invest in risker investments. Wouldn't that lead to an influx of start-up capital, innovation, hiring, and economic growth?
On the other hand, you can lower capital gains and encourage people to invest conservatively in the secondary market.
Which "game"? Are you "trading and investing" in companies by purchasing shares in IPOs, or are you "trading and investing" on Wall St.? If it is the latter, then basically you are buying and selling ownership interests in companies, which has almost no affect on underlying companies.
Won't higher capital gains reduce your "take home" earned from trading in the secondary market? If so, don't hedge funds and the like start investing in more risk taking?
Higher taxes does not spur innovation. If anything, it would spur more risk taking because hedge fund and the like would have to make up for that difference in revenue.
What do you think is/was the riskier investment? Investing in GE or investing in a start-up like Google? Innovation? I'm fairly certain buying 100 shares of GE from my broker didn't innovate a new lightbulb, but Google has innovated and expanded with the capital it received in its IPO. If you are trying to increase your rate of return over what you get from your GE shares, would you invest in AT&T or a little start-up called Chef John Smith, Inc. because you think he's an up and coming talent? One has a big upside, but also a lot of risk.
If the goal is to increase rate of return of an investment portfolio, your only choices are to be better at picking good stocks, or to invest in risker investments. Wouldn't that lead to an influx of start-up capital, innovation, hiring, and economic growth?
On the other hand, you can lower capital gains and encourage people to invest conservatively in the secondary market.
Blinkwing
Nov 30, 02:33 AM
What's the sound quality like? I've noticed that a few people have complained about a buzzing sound.
EDIT: What car you've got plus any modifications relating to sound system (speakers, amps, etc) would help greatly.
EDIT: What car you've got plus any modifications relating to sound system (speakers, amps, etc) would help greatly.
misterbee6
Sep 11, 10:21 AM
I bought the new Bob Dylan album a few days a go from the iTunes store. It comes with some bonus tracks that are videos of some older songs. I was listeningto the album yesterday, streaming the audio to the Airport Express connected to my stereo.
After it played the last song on the album, when it got to the videos, all of a sudden itunes stopped streaming the data to my AE, and started playing thru the PB speakers. I certainly didnt expect it to do that, but it did make me wonder:
Are we about to see a new piece of tech that will allow those videos to stream as well as the audio?
After it played the last song on the album, when it got to the videos, all of a sudden itunes stopped streaming the data to my AE, and started playing thru the PB speakers. I certainly didnt expect it to do that, but it did make me wonder:
Are we about to see a new piece of tech that will allow those videos to stream as well as the audio?
Sol
May 6, 05:16 AM
That came out of the blue. Running current applications on the next Rosetta would probably mean a negligible loss in speed. It does not matter, as native software will be iOS based and there is a thriving market for those already.
It all brings back memories of the PPC days. Apple must be confident about their ability to keep up with advancements by Intel and AMD. Considering the pace the iPad and iPhone processors have been getting upgraded I would guess that they can do it.
It all brings back memories of the PPC days. Apple must be confident about their ability to keep up with advancements by Intel and AMD. Considering the pace the iPad and iPhone processors have been getting upgraded I would guess that they can do it.
Slurpy2k8
Mar 30, 06:37 PM
Enjoy your brand new 129$ Mac OS X latest revision (the most advanced, the most unique, the most... bla bla bla bla...) carrying more than XXX features (aka... just making the Mac OS X experience more iOS-alike so you get used to AppStore since soon you'll have to go through this method of delivery as there won't be any other one, because Mr. Jobs wants more money...)
Yep... I think that 129$ sounds quite ok, for nothing :D
Though I'm not surprise... there's nothing shocking that they can implement. This "update" is aimed at training people into AppStore (aka money)... and they even charge for it :D
I lost braincells reading your stupidity.
Also, anyone who has used the lion dev preview knows for a fact that there are many major UI changes- easily the most significant UI updates since the release of OSX. But hey, everyone feel free to keep talking out of your asses.
Yep... I think that 129$ sounds quite ok, for nothing :D
Though I'm not surprise... there's nothing shocking that they can implement. This "update" is aimed at training people into AppStore (aka money)... and they even charge for it :D
I lost braincells reading your stupidity.
Also, anyone who has used the lion dev preview knows for a fact that there are many major UI changes- easily the most significant UI updates since the release of OSX. But hey, everyone feel free to keep talking out of your asses.
ChrisTX
Apr 20, 07:32 AM
This model promises to be one that many will pass on.
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
This model hasn't promised anything yet because no one but Apple knows what's in store. I don't see any cosmetic changes in store, and the iPhone 4 still looks better than every handset out to date. However don't count your chickens before they hatch!
Here's another one:
Stop making phones out of effing glass!
5 people I know have had shattered glass (on either the front or the back) of their iPhone 4s less than year into ownership. It's a bloody phone -- it's not a museum piece or collectible. It's going to get used, it's going to get dropped or fall off a table occasionally, and it needs to be at least minimally able to survive a 2 year contract.
Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
This model hasn't promised anything yet because no one but Apple knows what's in store. I don't see any cosmetic changes in store, and the iPhone 4 still looks better than every handset out to date. However don't count your chickens before they hatch!
Here's another one:
Stop making phones out of effing glass!
5 people I know have had shattered glass (on either the front or the back) of their iPhone 4s less than year into ownership. It's a bloody phone -- it's not a museum piece or collectible. It's going to get used, it's going to get dropped or fall off a table occasionally, and it needs to be at least minimally able to survive a 2 year contract.
Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
CainIs4Charlie
Nov 8, 07:24 AM
can anyone comment on the sound quality when playing music on the iphone via the tomtom kit when it's connected to the car's sound system?
reason for asking: when i use a standard audio cable from the headphone output of my iphone into my car's aux in, the sound quality leaves a lot to be desired. i basically have to crank up the volume all the way on both my car system and the iphone to hear anything, and even what i hear isn't all that great.
reason for asking: when i use a standard audio cable from the headphone output of my iphone into my car's aux in, the sound quality leaves a lot to be desired. i basically have to crank up the volume all the way on both my car system and the iphone to hear anything, and even what i hear isn't all that great.
Snowy_River
Jul 22, 12:29 AM
...
The iBooks got a big case revision when they moved into the Intel MacBook world, the MacBook-Pros-that-look-like-PowerBooks should, too.
Just so long as they don't make the glossy screen standard on the MBP, like they did on the MB. I can't stand that glare ridden, reflective surface finish!
The iBooks got a big case revision when they moved into the Intel MacBook world, the MacBook-Pros-that-look-like-PowerBooks should, too.
Just so long as they don't make the glossy screen standard on the MBP, like they did on the MB. I can't stand that glare ridden, reflective surface finish!
Zoowatch
Aug 7, 09:10 PM
how about frontrow and Apple remote?
i know this is a pro machine...
but having these built-in would be great
besides... SJ mentioned that frontrow would be enhanced in Leopard
does this mean that the new Mac Pro would have frontrow as well?
i know this is a pro machine...
but having these built-in would be great
besides... SJ mentioned that frontrow would be enhanced in Leopard
does this mean that the new Mac Pro would have frontrow as well?