DavidLeblond
May 4, 02:49 PM
I think I'll go with the App store method. I don't like discs lying around. I don't forsee having to ever have to install the OS from scratch however I do wonder how one would restore their backup from Time Machine in the event that their disk gets borked.
kretzy
Sep 11, 08:04 AM
I told Rob about the event yesterday...
"Great, all we need is another iPod." :rolleyes:
Poor Rob. :D
If it is something impressive I may just have to get it - seeing as I've never had an iPod (shocking, I know).
"Great, all we need is another iPod." :rolleyes:
Poor Rob. :D
If it is something impressive I may just have to get it - seeing as I've never had an iPod (shocking, I know).
Popeye206
May 4, 08:06 PM
But likely not if the mood strikes you at 2 AM, or on a holiday.
I know I always wait until 2am, when everyone else is asleep to upgrade my software. Nothing like alone time with new software and your hard drive just in case you have a magical moment! :eek:
:p
I know I always wait until 2am, when everyone else is asleep to upgrade my software. Nothing like alone time with new software and your hard drive just in case you have a magical moment! :eek:
:p
SLCentral
Aug 2, 06:20 PM
I agree with you that the 30" display is big. I disagree with you about any larger display as being too big. It may be for you but not for others. When I first starting using my 30" display besides my 23" display I thought it was big. Using it with my 17" PowerBook even makes it seem bigger. But the only thing that could hold me back from purchasing a larger display would be the need of purchasing a new computer to be able to use 2 larger screens at the same time. My 17" PowerBook can only use one. My MDD PowerMac can only use one. But that is really a different question.
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
I completely get what you're saying. After using my 30" for a little over a year on a daily basis, when using any other system, it's VERY tough. And even when I am using my 30", I often crave even more real estate, especially when working with digital photos, but even when I'm just surfing the web.
But, at this point in time (2006), I think a 40"+ screen is just simply too large for the average deskspace. Perhaps there's a place for them in production studios, etc., but even with that market, which is already limited, cost is just too big of a factor. To make a panel @ 40" with a resolution of 3840x2400, or even smaller, would be ASTRONOMICAL. We're talking at least $6K for each display, and the power needed to run that doesn't yet exist. Even Quad-SLI on PC's are having trouble running games at native res. Imagine Motion (since we all know OS X isn't a gaming platform) at 3840x2400? The power just isn't there yet.
Now, I agree, larger screens are the way of the future. But I just don't think that future is here yet.
Then again, $20 says I'm wrong :).
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
I completely get what you're saying. After using my 30" for a little over a year on a daily basis, when using any other system, it's VERY tough. And even when I am using my 30", I often crave even more real estate, especially when working with digital photos, but even when I'm just surfing the web.
But, at this point in time (2006), I think a 40"+ screen is just simply too large for the average deskspace. Perhaps there's a place for them in production studios, etc., but even with that market, which is already limited, cost is just too big of a factor. To make a panel @ 40" with a resolution of 3840x2400, or even smaller, would be ASTRONOMICAL. We're talking at least $6K for each display, and the power needed to run that doesn't yet exist. Even Quad-SLI on PC's are having trouble running games at native res. Imagine Motion (since we all know OS X isn't a gaming platform) at 3840x2400? The power just isn't there yet.
Now, I agree, larger screens are the way of the future. But I just don't think that future is here yet.
Then again, $20 says I'm wrong :).
ergle2
Sep 17, 02:44 AM
I Doubt Merom Supplies Are Off Allocation Yet � It's Unlikely Apple Can Get All They Need yet. Therefore MacBook will get Merom later and mini last.
Indeed. The big question is when they can update the MB?
Santa Rosa is currently expected no earlier than April. Assuming the MB's can't get Merom til, say, December, is it worth going C2D for ~4 months? (Assuming Santa Rosa is on-time -- which, to be fair, Intel's been pretty good at lately).
If the current enclosure is viable for Merom, then probably, but any late? Difficult to say.
The mini's probably less of a risk in that sense, and doesn't use CPUs in the same speed-range as the notebook systems, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it move up to C2D at the same time as the MB. I agree before the MB seems unlike for commercial reasons.
Indeed. The big question is when they can update the MB?
Santa Rosa is currently expected no earlier than April. Assuming the MB's can't get Merom til, say, December, is it worth going C2D for ~4 months? (Assuming Santa Rosa is on-time -- which, to be fair, Intel's been pretty good at lately).
If the current enclosure is viable for Merom, then probably, but any late? Difficult to say.
The mini's probably less of a risk in that sense, and doesn't use CPUs in the same speed-range as the notebook systems, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it move up to C2D at the same time as the MB. I agree before the MB seems unlike for commercial reasons.
anonalidall
May 7, 11:22 AM
I use Mobileme every day and it comes through for me every time. I also use it knowing that when i'm reading my email it's just me reading it not some automatic data mining program watching my every move.
Think about this. Your life, your privacy and ability to communicate without someone watching was sold down the river for a pittance. It's seems fair to you because your are the one that gets capitalized on in a capitalist society.
OK, I'll grant you that MobileMe doesn't suck as much as I make it sound. I just don't like it and so I don't use it anymore. Fair enough.
But, I think you misunderstand how Google's ads work. They aren't indexing and storing your emails in some data bank to sell off to ad companies. They do simple pattern matching on the text in your email to figure out which ads are most relevant and then displays those to you. The ad companies don't have access to your emails and can't read them, etc. I'm not being capitalized. If I don't want the ads I can pay $50 / year, or I can take the ads for free. That's just business, I enter into that in full agreement. And I trust Google just as much (if not more) than some random schmo ISP that would give me shoddy email service and just as much privacy as Google does but without the ads.
Think about this. Your life, your privacy and ability to communicate without someone watching was sold down the river for a pittance. It's seems fair to you because your are the one that gets capitalized on in a capitalist society.
OK, I'll grant you that MobileMe doesn't suck as much as I make it sound. I just don't like it and so I don't use it anymore. Fair enough.
But, I think you misunderstand how Google's ads work. They aren't indexing and storing your emails in some data bank to sell off to ad companies. They do simple pattern matching on the text in your email to figure out which ads are most relevant and then displays those to you. The ad companies don't have access to your emails and can't read them, etc. I'm not being capitalized. If I don't want the ads I can pay $50 / year, or I can take the ads for free. That's just business, I enter into that in full agreement. And I trust Google just as much (if not more) than some random schmo ISP that would give me shoddy email service and just as much privacy as Google does but without the ads.
yetanotherdave
May 3, 01:47 AM
You think you've got it bad? In Britain we have
milk and beer by the pint
coke by the litre
roads by the mile
tablecloths/fabric etc by the metre
petrol/diesel by the litre
fuel efficiency is measured in miles per gallon but carbon emissions are measured in grams per kilometer.
weight of people in stones and pounds
sugar/flour etc in kilograms
fruit by the pound
cheese by grams
bread loaves are labelled in grams, bread rolls sold by the dozen.
height in feet and inches.
and so on. It's a real mess. Basically we started to change, then stopped because people didn't like it. Then the EU decided certain things must be measured imperial, so now we have a have way house where nothing makes sense.
We switched from pricing petrol in gallons to litres when petrol got to 99.9 pence per gallon, and it was easier to change the signs to litres than add another digit. :rolleyes:
milk and beer by the pint
coke by the litre
roads by the mile
tablecloths/fabric etc by the metre
petrol/diesel by the litre
fuel efficiency is measured in miles per gallon but carbon emissions are measured in grams per kilometer.
weight of people in stones and pounds
sugar/flour etc in kilograms
fruit by the pound
cheese by grams
bread loaves are labelled in grams, bread rolls sold by the dozen.
height in feet and inches.
and so on. It's a real mess. Basically we started to change, then stopped because people didn't like it. Then the EU decided certain things must be measured imperial, so now we have a have way house where nothing makes sense.
We switched from pricing petrol in gallons to litres when petrol got to 99.9 pence per gallon, and it was easier to change the signs to litres than add another digit. :rolleyes:
Eidorian
Jul 23, 10:33 PM
I said sub-$1000. $999 is sub-$1000. ;) The iMac started out at $1300, and dropped to $800 at one point. Stuff it getting cheaper. I don't know when a cheaper laptop will be coming out, but I'll bet one is.The iMac hit $799 later in the G3's life and when the G4 came out. Apple was still selling the older G3 as a budget model.
RollTide1017
Mar 29, 01:35 PM
And if you stop subscribing?...What happens to your music files stored in the cloud?
One would be an idiot to not have a local backup of stuff they store in the "cloud."
One would be an idiot to not have a local backup of stuff they store in the "cloud."
CellarDoor
Aug 4, 01:58 PM
Duh, I mean what advantage would 64-bit processors & software over 32-bit?
64bit OS & software on a 64 bit processor (especially a dual core) is much better at multitasking, for one.
64bit OS & software on a 64 bit processor (especially a dual core) is much better at multitasking, for one.
gugy
Jul 30, 01:06 AM
Bring it on Apple!
My Verizon contract expires in February. I'll be glad to dump then in favor to the iphone.
My Verizon contract expires in February. I'll be glad to dump then in favor to the iphone.
PlipPlop
Apr 18, 03:38 PM
Apple scared of the competition and trying to sue them.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
marvel2
Nov 12, 10:01 PM
After hearing that they will delay shipping of the TomTom kit until December 2nd, I decided to give my local MacStore a call (not Apple Store). It was only $99.95 with no sales tax in Oregon. $10 more than Bottom Line Technologies, but I have the TomTom kit in my hands right now :)
toddybody
Apr 25, 09:44 AM
Because "they" didn't slip this trojan into the phones...the government did via the phone companies/FCC.
It is not enough to track every internet/email action of the population, they also want to know where we are at all times and our habits so a "repairman" can enter the house of a "dissident" while they are at work and...
Ties between intelligence agencies and consumer products have to be far more defined than any of us realize.
It is not enough to track every internet/email action of the population, they also want to know where we are at all times and our habits so a "repairman" can enter the house of a "dissident" while they are at work and...
Ties between intelligence agencies and consumer products have to be far more defined than any of us realize.
dnedved
Sep 11, 01:53 AM
If they come out with a video-capable Airport, I'll buy two of them. We don't have a TV and watch everything on our 17" and 12" PBs right now. I want a projector but don't want to have the mess of cables everywhere. This would be exactly what I need. I certainly don't need a new iPod, but if they came out with a true video iPod that could stream video wirelessly to the Airport, I'd probably have to pick up one or two of those as well.
Sky Blue
Sep 11, 09:44 AM
If they add the "album only" feature to *All* Radiohead's songs, more bands will follow. Mostly for marketing reasons. There are lots of those crappy "Radiohead wannabes - ohhhhhh our songs should not be outside their album":mad:
Now, I can't wait for tomorrow's event!
I think Radiohead is a good beat for iTunes when their new album is out. They've just signed a new deal.
Now, I can't wait for tomorrow's event!
I think Radiohead is a good beat for iTunes when their new album is out. They've just signed a new deal.
wilhelmreems
Mar 29, 10:36 AM
I seem to remember the "backing up your library" to the "cloud" was tried by someone before. They had software that scanned the CD in your drive and then either ripped it to their servers, or just unlocked access to that album in your account. RIAA brought them down. This seems a little different, and highly wasteful of space. If 500 people upload a copy of "whatever," Amazon has to store 500x the space of "whatever," rather then just unlocking one copy for 500x people. Keep in mind 1 meg of cloud space is easily over 10 megs of physical storage. (RAID, redundancy, geographical peers, backups, etc...)
Amazon... not sure what to make them. They seem to be doing things which obviously will get them sued. I guess they figure if any ONE takes off they will make bank. Either way, I'm excited about this because Apple is great at being the best. The better the competition, the better the Apple product.
not really true. it depends on what kind of storage options they are currently running, there are many devices and programs out there that eliminate this kind of redundancy and odds are amazon is using them right now.
Amazon... not sure what to make them. They seem to be doing things which obviously will get them sued. I guess they figure if any ONE takes off they will make bank. Either way, I'm excited about this because Apple is great at being the best. The better the competition, the better the Apple product.
not really true. it depends on what kind of storage options they are currently running, there are many devices and programs out there that eliminate this kind of redundancy and odds are amazon is using them right now.
kainjow
Sep 15, 05:53 PM
It's also standard in all the current MBPs, except the lowest model.
I don't think that qualifies as being "standard" if they're not all 1GB ;) :rolleyes:
I don't think that qualifies as being "standard" if they're not all 1GB ;) :rolleyes:
Macintosheux
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
We at Consomac.fr have shared this very information last Tuesday. I clearly remember sending you guys an e-mail about this. I'm very disappointed we are again not cited as original source for an exclusive news we've published... :(
Automatic English translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fconsomac.fr%2Fnews-1129.html
French original: http://consomac.fr/news-1129.html
Automatic English translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fconsomac.fr%2Fnews-1129.html
French original: http://consomac.fr/news-1129.html
sinsin07
Apr 25, 08:55 AM
So Steve is saying there is no database of locations? Thats just an outright lie.
There is a lot of information circulating. Without knowing what he is referring to exactly your statement is outright bogus.
There is a lot of information circulating. Without knowing what he is referring to exactly your statement is outright bogus.
Small White Car
Apr 5, 02:02 PM
No they didn’t. They ruled that distributing custom (jailbroken) firmware wasn’t in violation of copyright law.
Apple can’t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Fact is that Nintendo can still sue you for selling Nintendo games without their permission. But jailbreakers can't be sued by Apple.
So what's the big difference? It's a very fine line from here to there. A lack of money going to the people who figure out these jailbreak softwares is a big part of it.
Adding that kind of money to the mix just seems dangerous to me. Makes the difference between Apple and Nintendo seem less different.
Yes it will happen, what comes around goes around.:cool:
No. It won't.
Sorry.
Apple can’t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Fact is that Nintendo can still sue you for selling Nintendo games without their permission. But jailbreakers can't be sued by Apple.
So what's the big difference? It's a very fine line from here to there. A lack of money going to the people who figure out these jailbreak softwares is a big part of it.
Adding that kind of money to the mix just seems dangerous to me. Makes the difference between Apple and Nintendo seem less different.
Yes it will happen, what comes around goes around.:cool:
No. It won't.
Sorry.
Lesser Evets
Apr 23, 04:47 PM
My hopes were for smaller iMacs with retina displays. I own a 30" screen and while it isn't a burden, I really don't mind a 20" screen with high res.
The iMac should remain a kind of ultra-compact, semi-portable type computer. 20" should be the biggest, just up to retina. Will they do it this year?
Howabout 800x600? :eek:
I was just thinking of my old iBook with that res. Sheesh. These newer computers are making 1999 look like 1926.
The iMac should remain a kind of ultra-compact, semi-portable type computer. 20" should be the biggest, just up to retina. Will they do it this year?
Howabout 800x600? :eek:
I was just thinking of my old iBook with that res. Sheesh. These newer computers are making 1999 look like 1926.
jouster
Mar 30, 07:00 AM
I'd pay a premium for products manufactured in the US.
Products might be more expensive, but there would be more Americans employed. As much are there is a downside to producing here, there is also an upside.
Are you willing to pay significantly more?
Products might be more expensive, but there would be more Americans employed. As much are there is a downside to producing here, there is also an upside.
Are you willing to pay significantly more?
