Twizz91
Mar 22, 03:47 PM
Did not say he would improve it either. :(
Adding Bluetooth makes a lot of sense.
that would be nice indeed. it would be nice if i could stream music from my classic through my ipad ^^
Adding Bluetooth makes a lot of sense.
that would be nice indeed. it would be nice if i could stream music from my classic through my ipad ^^
Krizoitz
Mar 18, 10:43 PM
Please sign it !! For our sakes
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
This is what my friends and I refer to as a WOMBAT
Waste of Money, Brains and Time
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
This is what my friends and I refer to as a WOMBAT
Waste of Money, Brains and Time
infernohellion
Apr 3, 09:18 AM
The size decrease makes sense right?
Leopard was large because it was built to be run on PPC as well (universal binary)
Snow Leopard was much smaller because it's Intel only
and now further refinement plus 64-bit only stuff (right?)
Leopard was large because it was built to be run on PPC as well (universal binary)
Snow Leopard was much smaller because it's Intel only
and now further refinement plus 64-bit only stuff (right?)
r.j.s
Mar 20, 01:27 PM
Hey, check out this mini mushroom fireball thingie. What kind of bomb is this? It looks kind of big. Edpecially the fact that it's in the backgorund and the camera naturally makes it small. If you were up close, it's gotta be HUGE! ...and makes a mushroom too instantly.
The mushroom is just a by-product of the explosion. Most explosions form a small mushroom like that - usually, they dissipate quickly though.
The mushroom is just a by-product of the explosion. Most explosions form a small mushroom like that - usually, they dissipate quickly though.
ZipZap
May 3, 04:40 AM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
I think this is fair but let me bottom line it.
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
I think this is fair but let me bottom line it.
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
Hraggleblarg
Sep 29, 11:27 PM
Why is it so impossible to find an orange case? I'm so frustrated.
HecubusPro
Aug 24, 05:57 PM
man i'd love for them to include "old" yonah based chips and release a mini for $300-$400. i just want the cheapest intel rig i can buy right now as i'm "mid-cycle".
I thought Yonah and Merom are basically the same cost-wise. That's why everyone thinks including merom in new systems won't raise the price of those systems. I could be wrong.
I thought Yonah and Merom are basically the same cost-wise. That's why everyone thinks including merom in new systems won't raise the price of those systems. I could be wrong.
satkin2
May 3, 01:35 AM
If this deletes the app and all associated preference files etc then it's a good thing. Sure it's not as easy as dragging to the trash, but this doesn't remove all traces of the app.
As someone who's come over from the Windows world this has to be one of the few features that I think OS X is worse at. I shouldn't have to install a stand alone app (AppCleaner) to be sure that I'm removing the whole programme. If this new method does this then I can't see how this isn't a good thing.
As someone who's come over from the Windows world this has to be one of the few features that I think OS X is worse at. I shouldn't have to install a stand alone app (AppCleaner) to be sure that I'm removing the whole programme. If this new method does this then I can't see how this isn't a good thing.
likemyorbs
Mar 22, 12:35 PM
But then, I don't believe that's what many really believe when they say it... instead, I get the vibe that what they mean to say is 'why can't you just closet yourself and act straight?'.
I do think some people genuinely believe it's a choice. It's hard for some people to imagine that not everyone's minds work the same as theirs, and not just related to homosexuality. Chances are, someone who considers homosexuality a choice likely has issues with other groups of people as well.
I do think some people genuinely believe it's a choice. It's hard for some people to imagine that not everyone's minds work the same as theirs, and not just related to homosexuality. Chances are, someone who considers homosexuality a choice likely has issues with other groups of people as well.
kahkityoong
Apr 3, 10:59 AM
the iPad does nothing useful
One of my patients has locked in syndrome, a condition in which he could only move his eyes. Over a year he regained use of his right hand. The iPad has given him a new lease of life - his voice, entertainment, etc. He would disagree with your idiotic statement.
One of my patients has locked in syndrome, a condition in which he could only move his eyes. Over a year he regained use of his right hand. The iPad has given him a new lease of life - his voice, entertainment, etc. He would disagree with your idiotic statement.
led1002
Mar 19, 04:24 PM
i highly doubt that many computer buyers even look at Macs.
most of them "know" computers as running windows and purchased from dell catalog they get with their newspaper each week.
jxyama, I think you have something there... last nite my wife (who is computer ignorant) asks whether I have a MAC or a PC. Turns out her best friend (newbie PC user for about 1 year) has convinced her that MACs aren't as good. My wife or her friend have never even used one but they 'KNOW' they are inferior to MACs. Now if either of them were to have to make a buying decision it's not hard to imagine what they'll walk out the store with.
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
most of them "know" computers as running windows and purchased from dell catalog they get with their newspaper each week.
jxyama, I think you have something there... last nite my wife (who is computer ignorant) asks whether I have a MAC or a PC. Turns out her best friend (newbie PC user for about 1 year) has convinced her that MACs aren't as good. My wife or her friend have never even used one but they 'KNOW' they are inferior to MACs. Now if either of them were to have to make a buying decision it's not hard to imagine what they'll walk out the store with.
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
mdntcallr
Sep 6, 09:06 AM
cmon apple. get a clue.
these little mini's are nice but not great. there is a real void in your product lineup.
we need something with like a intel conroe chip, larger case, the ability to put in a better graphics card, and the basics like more ram, bigger hard drive and stuff.
give us a bigger mid sized tower type computer.
we all don't want to buy something with a screen. nor do we want some tiny puny non-upgradeable thing like the mac mini.
give us better options.
these little mini's are nice but not great. there is a real void in your product lineup.
we need something with like a intel conroe chip, larger case, the ability to put in a better graphics card, and the basics like more ram, bigger hard drive and stuff.
give us a bigger mid sized tower type computer.
we all don't want to buy something with a screen. nor do we want some tiny puny non-upgradeable thing like the mac mini.
give us better options.
longofest
Jul 19, 03:48 PM
What, the analysts weren't even close? I'm shocked. :rolleyes:
Actually, the analysts were pretty close this time, except for the profit margins. I'm thinking that the fact that the iPod is now using older parts (therefore cheaper parts) is pushing the cost down for Apple, and hence really making it a big cash cow and driving up the profit margin, even if they aren't selling quite as many as last quarter (which also has to do with seasonal decline).
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, the analysts were pretty close this time, except for the profit margins. I'm thinking that the fact that the iPod is now using older parts (therefore cheaper parts) is pushing the cost down for Apple, and hence really making it a big cash cow and driving up the profit margin, even if they aren't selling quite as many as last quarter (which also has to do with seasonal decline).
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
evoluzione
Aug 6, 09:27 PM
anyone have any clues to whether the Apple retail stores are goig to be showing the keynote???
DeathChill
Apr 3, 01:50 AM
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
Where are they not competing on specs here? The CPU is almost identical and the iPad 2's GPU is much better. I guess you can take better camera's over thickness and weight.
Like when device can be useful with poor specs. Are you talking about those iPad 2 cameras? How useful are those with their embarrassing specs?
They are useful for FaceTime, which is what they were designed for. What are the purpose of the Xoom camera's, besides to say that they have them?
Where are they not competing on specs here? The CPU is almost identical and the iPad 2's GPU is much better. I guess you can take better camera's over thickness and weight.
Like when device can be useful with poor specs. Are you talking about those iPad 2 cameras? How useful are those with their embarrassing specs?
They are useful for FaceTime, which is what they were designed for. What are the purpose of the Xoom camera's, besides to say that they have them?
SpiderDude
Jun 24, 12:18 PM
No chance. The ergonomics would be a disaster.
I second that. I have both an 27 iMac and the first aluminum Macbook with a Multi-Touch trackpad and touching on a screen would be quite uncomfortable. I'd rather use my macbook's Multi-Touch trackpad than the magic mouse.
:apple:
I second that. I have both an 27 iMac and the first aluminum Macbook with a Multi-Touch trackpad and touching on a screen would be quite uncomfortable. I'd rather use my macbook's Multi-Touch trackpad than the magic mouse.
:apple:
hokka
Jan 2, 05:39 AM
new iPod that can be used to control & maybe mirror what's shown on the new iTV within range, and it uses BT headphones to avoid the problem of plug & unplug 3.5 jack all the time. All changed from a single dock...
shadowmoses
Nov 27, 01:18 PM
This would be a really great release hope it is true. I am also sure that many including myself would be willing to pay a slight premium for a 17" Apple widescreen display....
ShadoW
ShadoW
motulist
Aug 6, 10:44 PM
"You've come to the right platform."
- from WWDC Apple banner http://guides.macrumors.com/Image:Coveredbanners.jpg. Apple is really doing a full court press against Windows!
This era is either the beginning of the Mac gaining serious market share, or the moment history will view as proof that Apple cannot make major market gains no matter how hard they try. My bet is on the former.
- from WWDC Apple banner http://guides.macrumors.com/Image:Coveredbanners.jpg. Apple is really doing a full court press against Windows!
This era is either the beginning of the Mac gaining serious market share, or the moment history will view as proof that Apple cannot make major market gains no matter how hard they try. My bet is on the former.
EricNau
Jul 18, 02:01 AM
Whether buying or renting, I hope these movies will be better quality than the current videos on the iTunes Music Store. I wouldn't pay a dime for a video that wasn't at least DVD quality.
It's good that iTunes is gaining more features that will help keep it ahead of Microsoft.
It's good that iTunes is gaining more features that will help keep it ahead of Microsoft.
GregA
Dec 31, 11:08 PM
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.True, as long as there is a payment model that works too (for stuff like HBO On Demand). I would prefer to have a single bill for all subscriptions, but if I'm only watching a couple then I could pay them directly.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
MrFrankly
Oct 23, 08:12 AM
I always by my portables in America.
Don't you end up spending so much money on tax when you enter the UK again that it isn't really worth it?
Don't you end up spending so much money on tax when you enter the UK again that it isn't really worth it?
newagemac
May 3, 09:02 AM
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
Tommyg117
Sep 6, 07:35 PM
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod. Sure you can use the output from the dock to play it on your tv, but if you have a slightly big tv, it doesn't look DVD quality.
No comments:
Post a Comment