mr.steevo
Apr 14, 11:50 AM
Thank goodness Intel will be supporting USB3 for our peripherals.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is barely tolerating the mouse and keyboard lag from the slower USB2 port.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is barely tolerating the mouse and keyboard lag from the slower USB2 port.
w00master
Nov 13, 01:54 PM
On the surface, Apple's position on this specific application seems ridiculous. Having said that, I don't know if the App store approval process changes much. If the iPhone was open to any application, then Apple could have taken legal action against Rogue Amoeba. I suppose it would be more difficult than just denying the app, but Apple would have a way to squash this app, if they wanted to.
I have to disagree. Rogue Amoeba in *no way* violated Trademark or Copyright rules with this. In fact, they used Apple's own OS X APIs.
w00master
I have to disagree. Rogue Amoeba in *no way* violated Trademark or Copyright rules with this. In fact, they used Apple's own OS X APIs.
w00master
baryon
Apr 20, 01:25 PM
That's pretty ridiculous...
Freg3000
Nov 13, 04:05 PM
Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I believe you are mistaken. As far as I know, there is no risk of losing a copyright if you failed to defend against previous infringers. If I were to guess, I think you are talking about trademark law, which is different.
There are many classic examples, but currently Adobe has a policy where it seeks to prevent people from using "Photoshop" in a generalized way, since if it solidly becomes a synonym for digital photo manipulation in the language, they will lose their trademark. If Adobe is shown to not go after those who use Photoshop in a generalized manner, in the future they will be less able to defend against it in the future.
As far as I know, this has no relevancy to the current situation, since we are talking about copyright, not trademarks.
I believe you are mistaken. As far as I know, there is no risk of losing a copyright if you failed to defend against previous infringers. If I were to guess, I think you are talking about trademark law, which is different.
There are many classic examples, but currently Adobe has a policy where it seeks to prevent people from using "Photoshop" in a generalized way, since if it solidly becomes a synonym for digital photo manipulation in the language, they will lose their trademark. If Adobe is shown to not go after those who use Photoshop in a generalized manner, in the future they will be less able to defend against it in the future.
As far as I know, this has no relevancy to the current situation, since we are talking about copyright, not trademarks.
Lollypop
Aug 29, 01:08 AM
The current PB look has been around since 2001. I think the alumin look is starting to look soooo 2000. Were heading toward time to move on with a new chip and a new look.
I still like the look of the PB, a few refinements would be welcome... mag latch, firewire 800 on the 15inch model. I dont think apple will do a complete redesign for a "small" upgrade like the C2D, but they can take the chance to polish their offerings a bit more.
I still like the look of the PB, a few refinements would be welcome... mag latch, firewire 800 on the 15inch model. I dont think apple will do a complete redesign for a "small" upgrade like the C2D, but they can take the chance to polish their offerings a bit more.
CrackedButter
Sep 19, 03:22 PM
Hmm mixed feelings about this.
I want them to be successful, but I also want:
- DVD extras
- HD resolution
- burnable to disc
- rental system
I hope success won't lull them into thinking the current restrictions are ok. :(
Oh well, I can stick with DVDs.
You want HD quality downloads but you can "stick" with DVD's? Do you understand how much information there is for a HD movie? Try one of the new disc formats, but you want to be able to download it? Crazy!
I agree on the rental system however, I wouldn't mind renting but it would have to be cheaper of course.
I want them to be successful, but I also want:
- DVD extras
- HD resolution
- burnable to disc
- rental system
I hope success won't lull them into thinking the current restrictions are ok. :(
Oh well, I can stick with DVDs.
You want HD quality downloads but you can "stick" with DVD's? Do you understand how much information there is for a HD movie? Try one of the new disc formats, but you want to be able to download it? Crazy!
I agree on the rental system however, I wouldn't mind renting but it would have to be cheaper of course.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 01:06 PM
If Steve says it's good, then all will be forgiven.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:47 AM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
ucfgrad93
Apr 25, 01:08 AM
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
Once again you provide further evidence that you do not belong in the driver's seat of a tricycle much less a car.
Once again you provide further evidence that you do not belong in the driver's seat of a tricycle much less a car.
jackaninny
Mar 29, 12:27 PM
Looks to me like a combined MS/Nokia actually LOSES marketshare. (26.4% down to 21.1%) - funny how the 'report' doesn't spin the numbers that way. I do find it humorous that these analysts think they can see 2015 with any semblance of accuracy.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 06:31 PM
It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.Anyone got numbers on percentage of computer users who play games? I never play games. Am I in a minority?
Edot
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
I'm not sure why there is so much argument about the term "app". The trademark is for "App Store" not for "app". It would be like arguing that "Burger King" is not a valid trademark because "burger" is a generic term.
ghostlyorb
Apr 4, 11:58 AM
I've never seen a mall security guard carrying a gun.
I have. And it said that it was BEFORE the mall opened. So if it was night security.. it's different.
I have. And it said that it was BEFORE the mall opened. So if it was night security.. it's different.
cere
Apr 14, 03:30 PM
I really hope Intel delays USB 3. I have a mid 2007 MBP, even though I use FW800, I have resorted to using my ExpressCard slot with an eSata adapter which is even faster than FW800. If anything, the difference will be made with the companies who make the external HDD to implement thunderbolt technology into their products. I just hate usb in general, I only use it for flash drives and my mouse.
Agreed. Concurrent support will favour USB3 due to familiarity. Device vendors will be the key here.
Agreed. Concurrent support will favour USB3 due to familiarity. Device vendors will be the key here.
mulze22
Sep 12, 04:17 PM
I have a 30 GB video already, but these new ones look good to me. I think I will have ordered one by the end of the week.
rmwebs
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
Maybe Bill should spend some more money on developing a decent OS in stead of whining about Apple's wording of something.
Sorry but you've gotta be the dumbest person around here. 'Bill' has no involvement in Microsofts activities and hasn't done for a LONG time.
Microsoft have a very valid argument. Just because they are MICROSOFT it doesn't mean they are always wrong. (I know, it's shocking isn't it!)
Sorry but you've gotta be the dumbest person around here. 'Bill' has no involvement in Microsofts activities and hasn't done for a LONG time.
Microsoft have a very valid argument. Just because they are MICROSOFT it doesn't mean they are always wrong. (I know, it's shocking isn't it!)
Blue Fox
Jan 1, 03:22 AM
Wasn't there supposedly a "virus" going around for the Mac on Facebook a couple months ago? And it was supposed to be all doom and gloom for the Mac (so I've read in the forums from doom-sayers)......but, I haven't heard anything about it since, because nothing happened......this is pretty much the same thing.
stol
Apr 11, 09:36 AM
Ever heard of Home Sharing?
Well, thank you, I've heard of Home Sharing. I use it myself on my desktop and laptop. I was referring to an one-click streaming solution like Airtunes. More like "click there to stream music to my mac which is connected to my sound system" than "go to preferences, enable sharing; now wait while I browse your shared library".
So, Airport Expresses are luxury but other WiFi routers onto which an Airplay hack could be installed are not luxury?
You can rightfully slam Apple for not including Airplay into the Time Capsule and Airport Extreme but that is about it.
I think you got it completely wrong here. How is my WiFi router which was given to me for free by my internet provider a luxury? Who talked about hacking my router? How could possibly a common router provide me with audio output?
And of course Apple is getting greedy by not adding Airtunes to other wireless solutions they sell. One more reason to skip them altogether and go for a hack or other software solution. Once again, don't get me wrong, I love Apple and their products, I but there are some use cases where they just don't care or have completely other interests.
To stream between computers, you only need iTunes and Home Sharing, which is, btw, free. And you now welcome/wish for a third-party hack to stream music and then in the same breath say that installing even bonafide software like the free Airfoil Speakers or iTunes is out of the question. What is it, you could convince your friends to install a third-party hack on their computers but not iTunes or Airfoil?
Once again, my words are misinterpreted or you just don't understand.
I just wish to stream to my mac which is connected to my sound system from other Airtunes capable devices. That involves a hack only on my part and nothing at all to be done on other computers or iOS devices. Call me cheap, but that would be convenient to me and my friends.
And as I said before, I can see myself buying an Airport Express (although I would prefer the Airport Extreme, if it had an audio output) for a computer-less streaming setup, but for my current setup - which I think is the most common one - and budget I will opt for a tricky hack.
To sum up, all I want is a Banana-TV equivalent but just for audio. It looks like it's just a matter of time.
Well, thank you, I've heard of Home Sharing. I use it myself on my desktop and laptop. I was referring to an one-click streaming solution like Airtunes. More like "click there to stream music to my mac which is connected to my sound system" than "go to preferences, enable sharing; now wait while I browse your shared library".
So, Airport Expresses are luxury but other WiFi routers onto which an Airplay hack could be installed are not luxury?
You can rightfully slam Apple for not including Airplay into the Time Capsule and Airport Extreme but that is about it.
I think you got it completely wrong here. How is my WiFi router which was given to me for free by my internet provider a luxury? Who talked about hacking my router? How could possibly a common router provide me with audio output?
And of course Apple is getting greedy by not adding Airtunes to other wireless solutions they sell. One more reason to skip them altogether and go for a hack or other software solution. Once again, don't get me wrong, I love Apple and their products, I but there are some use cases where they just don't care or have completely other interests.
To stream between computers, you only need iTunes and Home Sharing, which is, btw, free. And you now welcome/wish for a third-party hack to stream music and then in the same breath say that installing even bonafide software like the free Airfoil Speakers or iTunes is out of the question. What is it, you could convince your friends to install a third-party hack on their computers but not iTunes or Airfoil?
Once again, my words are misinterpreted or you just don't understand.
I just wish to stream to my mac which is connected to my sound system from other Airtunes capable devices. That involves a hack only on my part and nothing at all to be done on other computers or iOS devices. Call me cheap, but that would be convenient to me and my friends.
And as I said before, I can see myself buying an Airport Express (although I would prefer the Airport Extreme, if it had an audio output) for a computer-less streaming setup, but for my current setup - which I think is the most common one - and budget I will opt for a tricky hack.
To sum up, all I want is a Banana-TV equivalent but just for audio. It looks like it's just a matter of time.
G5Unit
Sep 4, 08:00 PM
WO0t! PowerBook G5 tuesday after next!
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 01:53 AM
No different? What planet on you living on because it's not Earth.... The link quoted tested a slow 2.5" drive and still showed a 3.5x speed improvement. USB3 can only go as fast as the drive it's connected to. You're going to find that out with TB as well. You can't make gold out of dirt.
These people on here suggesting Intel should can USB3 are not real computer users. They're non-computer types that don't know WTF they're talking about. Period. There is NO reason to NOT use USB3 on new computers. Their cost is next to nothing. They're 100% backwards compatible with USB2.0,1.1 and 1.0 and you'll need those ports regardless whether your computer has TB or not. Not having USB3 simply means less flexibility. Even if you hate it, your friend comes over with his 7200RPM USB3 drive and connects it to your Mac using USB 2.0 and instead of going 110MB/sec as it would under USB3, it goes 30-35MB/sec under USB 2.0. He then asks you why your Mac SUCKS SO HARD and your reply will be that he should have paid $400 for that drive with a TB connector instead of $150 with a USB3 connector (even though TB will not go faster because that's the limit of the drive itself). Your friend will then suggest you give him some money since you're stinking loaded to WASTE $250 more on the TB drive when USB3 would have done just as well. But then you remind him that Apple don't support no stinking USB3 and he then tells you that his PC just 'PWNED' your 'Crapple'. :eek:
Apple isn't doing themselves ANY favors to ignore mainstream tech. They want TB? Fine, but don't leave out USB3 to spite yourself. Oh wait. They already did that with Blu-Ray.... :rolleyes:
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
Lol
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also.
These people on here suggesting Intel should can USB3 are not real computer users. They're non-computer types that don't know WTF they're talking about. Period. There is NO reason to NOT use USB3 on new computers. Their cost is next to nothing. They're 100% backwards compatible with USB2.0,1.1 and 1.0 and you'll need those ports regardless whether your computer has TB or not. Not having USB3 simply means less flexibility. Even if you hate it, your friend comes over with his 7200RPM USB3 drive and connects it to your Mac using USB 2.0 and instead of going 110MB/sec as it would under USB3, it goes 30-35MB/sec under USB 2.0. He then asks you why your Mac SUCKS SO HARD and your reply will be that he should have paid $400 for that drive with a TB connector instead of $150 with a USB3 connector (even though TB will not go faster because that's the limit of the drive itself). Your friend will then suggest you give him some money since you're stinking loaded to WASTE $250 more on the TB drive when USB3 would have done just as well. But then you remind him that Apple don't support no stinking USB3 and he then tells you that his PC just 'PWNED' your 'Crapple'. :eek:
Apple isn't doing themselves ANY favors to ignore mainstream tech. They want TB? Fine, but don't leave out USB3 to spite yourself. Oh wait. They already did that with Blu-Ray.... :rolleyes:
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
Lol
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also.
vincenz
Apr 4, 12:33 PM
From one of the articles:
"It appeared that the man involved in the shooting might have been shot in the backside."
All for an Apple product? :eek:
"It appeared that the man involved in the shooting might have been shot in the backside."
All for an Apple product? :eek:
Eduardo1971
Sep 12, 02:46 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
:D :) :D
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
:D :) :D
Fukui
Sep 19, 04:16 PM
Erm... that is wrong. All major Hollywood DVDs are encoded as progressive full frames at 23.976fps. The interlacing you are seeing is the result of adding pulldown frames to pad it out to 29.97 interlaced for NTSC. And since they are encoded anamorphically, it uses the full 720x480 and depending on your output display, either gets letterboxed or stretched wide on a real 16:9 HDTV.
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
Yea, I see. I wouldn't be surprised if they were letterboxed... I would rather wait till a tv show comes out "widescreen" and see for myself for 1.99 then 9.99 and be dissapointed...
Hopefully, over time, the quality will get better. It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle... so maybe it all depends on the iPod getting a better screen and processor...
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
Yea, I see. I wouldn't be surprised if they were letterboxed... I would rather wait till a tv show comes out "widescreen" and see for myself for 1.99 then 9.99 and be dissapointed...
Hopefully, over time, the quality will get better. It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle... so maybe it all depends on the iPod getting a better screen and processor...
mactactic
Apr 14, 12:38 PM
I knew this was coming , knowing when to upgrade to a new mac
PRICELESS !!! :D:apple:
PRICELESS !!! :D:apple:
No comments:
Post a Comment