roadbloc
Mar 29, 01:05 PM
It does have CUT and Paste.
Command-X = Cut
Command-P = Paste
Command-C = Copy
Command-X is CUT !!!!!!
Now read through the rest of the posts after that and discover that Finder does not support Cut and Paste.
Command-X = Cut
Command-P = Paste
Command-C = Copy
Command-X is CUT !!!!!!
Now read through the rest of the posts after that and discover that Finder does not support Cut and Paste.
Bomino
Apr 25, 02:45 AM
Because I actually care about my grandparents. They have done something genuine for me, they have cared for me, they have loved me, etc.
this love you have for your grand parents is called conditional love. AKA the love of a spoiled brat. AKA fake love.
EDIT: you know, if your parents thought of you this way, there would be absolutely no incentive to even want to feed you.
this love you have for your grand parents is called conditional love. AKA the love of a spoiled brat. AKA fake love.
EDIT: you know, if your parents thought of you this way, there would be absolutely no incentive to even want to feed you.
iCrizzo
Apr 19, 10:51 AM
Anyone who is stupid enough to confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone shouldn't own a smartphone anyway. All they have to do is turn over the freaking phone and notice that big Samsung logo to know it's not an Apple product.
Or they could open up the iPhone and see the same Samsung logo tattoo'd all over the parts. :eek:
Or they could open up the iPhone and see the same Samsung logo tattoo'd all over the parts. :eek:
nomik2
Mar 29, 12:03 PM
Seems believable...all those people that bought Nokia phones obviously did not care that Symbian was outdated. Why will they not buy Nokia with a much modern OS under the hood?
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 04:47 PM
1024 CPUs??? WOW... and I thought I had nasty simulations. :o
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
You had to explicitly write your applications in a special parallel computing version of Fortran or OCCAM. It was exceptionally quick at matrices and vector equations so working out the weather was one of the things it was good at. They did a later DAP with 4096 processors. :-)
The point is, multiple cores are only of use if you've a task that can be split up into separate threads. Many general purpose computing tasks simply can't be multi threaded easily or at all.
On the Mac though, the main advantage of at least two cores is that the OS can run the WindowServer task, that handles all your windows on screen and generally consumes a lot of CPU when you've got 16 apps running on your screen on one CPU and your application on another and it's still nippy so you don't get the beachball so often switching apps. The second core can also be doing something like running backups, indexing a hard drive for Spotlight, hotclustering files, updating thumbnails in iPhoto.... Past two cores and you're in diminishing returns except for specific applications that can be multithreaded.
The one advantage Macs have had for a few years of course is that there is a long history of dual CPU machines. Windows on the other hand rarely has multi threaded applications. Both OS's are a pain in the arse to write multi threaded apps for though. The wisdom of BeOS's designers would work wonders with today's CPUs.
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
You had to explicitly write your applications in a special parallel computing version of Fortran or OCCAM. It was exceptionally quick at matrices and vector equations so working out the weather was one of the things it was good at. They did a later DAP with 4096 processors. :-)
The point is, multiple cores are only of use if you've a task that can be split up into separate threads. Many general purpose computing tasks simply can't be multi threaded easily or at all.
On the Mac though, the main advantage of at least two cores is that the OS can run the WindowServer task, that handles all your windows on screen and generally consumes a lot of CPU when you've got 16 apps running on your screen on one CPU and your application on another and it's still nippy so you don't get the beachball so often switching apps. The second core can also be doing something like running backups, indexing a hard drive for Spotlight, hotclustering files, updating thumbnails in iPhoto.... Past two cores and you're in diminishing returns except for specific applications that can be multithreaded.
The one advantage Macs have had for a few years of course is that there is a long history of dual CPU machines. Windows on the other hand rarely has multi threaded applications. Both OS's are a pain in the arse to write multi threaded apps for though. The wisdom of BeOS's designers would work wonders with today's CPUs.
Captainobvvious
Mar 30, 11:59 AM
Its important to always note context.
Windows may be generic but only when you're trying to trademark the term for actual windows. Windows doesn't describe an OS... It is the same with office. If they wanted to call Office "Word Processor" it would be considered generic because they are trying to trademark the generic term to describe something.
App Store IS generic in that same sense.
But I think consideration needs to be paid to the circumstances too. There have been MANY application repositories many with names like "Marketplace". The term App Store was always there for the taking but none used it because it was a generic term that they didn't think was catchy.
Now Apple has used the term and it has become a household term associated with Apple... There is a brand awareness there they cultivated without needing a trademark.
Now that all the work has been done and people have an association with App Store the other companies want to use to for no other reason than to cash in on the strong name brand APP STORE has.
It is certainly incredibly generic but it does have strong brand association, consumer trust and recognition that was completely created by Apple.
NOTE: I KNOW the term App Store has been used in the past and Apple didn't invent it. They did take it from a n obscure, not widely used term and made it to the household name it is today.
Windows may be generic but only when you're trying to trademark the term for actual windows. Windows doesn't describe an OS... It is the same with office. If they wanted to call Office "Word Processor" it would be considered generic because they are trying to trademark the generic term to describe something.
App Store IS generic in that same sense.
But I think consideration needs to be paid to the circumstances too. There have been MANY application repositories many with names like "Marketplace". The term App Store was always there for the taking but none used it because it was a generic term that they didn't think was catchy.
Now Apple has used the term and it has become a household term associated with Apple... There is a brand awareness there they cultivated without needing a trademark.
Now that all the work has been done and people have an association with App Store the other companies want to use to for no other reason than to cash in on the strong name brand APP STORE has.
It is certainly incredibly generic but it does have strong brand association, consumer trust and recognition that was completely created by Apple.
NOTE: I KNOW the term App Store has been used in the past and Apple didn't invent it. They did take it from a n obscure, not widely used term and made it to the household name it is today.
brepublican
Sep 2, 04:02 PM
Hey guys, just hope some stuff comes out on the 5th, like new MBP with some C2D, i guess that should show up... and doesn't need any kind of keynote show.... and maybe the mini ... to with some improved specs ... as far fot the MB, that is what I'm waiting for ... shouldn't show up at least by the end of the month !!! But who KNOWS ..... ???? :rolleyes: A litle suprise would be nice !!!!
I think the focus is on the iMac and mini. I have been waiting long enough for this...
This is gonna be one hot upgrade:D :D
I think the focus is on the iMac and mini. I have been waiting long enough for this...
This is gonna be one hot upgrade:D :D
Socratic
Apr 22, 11:32 PM
seems to me that lots of people complaining about the data on mobile phone issue are overlooking something. When network capacity allowed them to, networks gave unlimited data - then we all got data hungry, killing capacity and forcing limits. At some point soon (probably with 4G) the networks won't have a capacity issue with increased levels. They probably won't go back to true unlimited - they are businesses after all - but we could be looking at broadband rates similar to landline, maybe �15/month for 100GB or so. As and when that kicks in, having a media cloud will be a huge blessing. Until then, wifi users and home users will still benefit.
3G just doesn't have anywhere near the massive capacity 4G can be optimised to give.
3G just doesn't have anywhere near the massive capacity 4G can be optimised to give.
~Shard~
Sep 10, 10:22 AM
Great news that Kentsfield is coming early, however I am curious to see what Apple does with it (if anything). Since it is based on the Conroe chipset, and Apple has elected not to incorporate Conroe into any of the Mac line-up (yet), I wonder what Kentsfield's role will be (if any) in the Mac world.
Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D
Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D
rtkane
Apr 4, 12:47 PM
I often wondered what kind of people could find a homeowner who shot an armed intruder guilty of a crime or culpable in civil court. Having read many of the comments in this thread, now I know.
milo
Sep 19, 03:28 PM
Considering that the iTS is like the 5th biggest music vendor, they sure suck at selling movies. 125k is nothing compared to real movie vendors.
Maybe when they get more than 75 movies. Amazon unbox started with like 2000 movies!
Are you serious? This is their first WEEK of doing it, what do you expect? And how many movies did Amazon sell in their first week? I'd bet it was less than Apple. Good selection won't overcome crappy implemenation.
I guess people value convenience over quality. That's great for Apple. That confirms it will be a success.
For me I rather buy DVDs or wait for hi definition downloads, but I guess many people out there are satisfy with lower quality.
From what I've heard, the quality is pretty close to DVD. Have you compared the two? What is your complaint about quality?
On my DSL connection, it took about 7 hours. I let it go overnight.
Not quite the 30 minutes that Steve promised.
He quoted that number on a 5M connection...is that what you have?
Maybe they could make iTunes let you start playing your TV show download before it's finished, like they let you do with movies?
I'd bet they already do, since the download engine in iTunes is redone. Can anyone confirm?
Maybe when they get more than 75 movies. Amazon unbox started with like 2000 movies!
Are you serious? This is their first WEEK of doing it, what do you expect? And how many movies did Amazon sell in their first week? I'd bet it was less than Apple. Good selection won't overcome crappy implemenation.
I guess people value convenience over quality. That's great for Apple. That confirms it will be a success.
For me I rather buy DVDs or wait for hi definition downloads, but I guess many people out there are satisfy with lower quality.
From what I've heard, the quality is pretty close to DVD. Have you compared the two? What is your complaint about quality?
On my DSL connection, it took about 7 hours. I let it go overnight.
Not quite the 30 minutes that Steve promised.
He quoted that number on a 5M connection...is that what you have?
Maybe they could make iTunes let you start playing your TV show download before it's finished, like they let you do with movies?
I'd bet they already do, since the download engine in iTunes is redone. Can anyone confirm?
akadmon
Sep 4, 11:03 PM
Merom MBPs of course :D
I second this emoticon!
If anyone at Apple HQs is listening, please give us a revved up/priced down MBP. Merom + 160 GB/7200 rpm hdd at $1999 would be sweet. I don't care to watch movies on anything less than a 50" screen, and I sure as hell am not moved to tears by an 8GB nano that is priced at 75% of a regular iPod. C'mon Apple, it's not too late!
I second this emoticon!
If anyone at Apple HQs is listening, please give us a revved up/priced down MBP. Merom + 160 GB/7200 rpm hdd at $1999 would be sweet. I don't care to watch movies on anything less than a 50" screen, and I sure as hell am not moved to tears by an 8GB nano that is priced at 75% of a regular iPod. C'mon Apple, it's not too late!
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 02:11 PM
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
adamfilip
Aug 28, 02:07 PM
from what ive read the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo isnt much
its not like P4 and Core 2 Duo
the Core 2 Duo are -10-15% faster at the same clock speed but use more power
its not like P4 and Core 2 Duo
the Core 2 Duo are -10-15% faster at the same clock speed but use more power
FX120
Apr 16, 12:50 PM
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
dwman
Apr 4, 11:54 AM
The security guard just saved CA taxpayers a nice chunk of change.
Detrius
Mar 16, 10:31 AM
I can just imagine that future Apple operating systems might very well include native protection that wold continue to thwart people wanting to sell anti-malware for Apple OS.
OS X Server ships with clamav for filtering viruses through the email server. Lion merges client and server. Therefore, there will be an antivirus program shipping with 10.7.
OS X Server ships with clamav for filtering viruses through the email server. Lion merges client and server. Therefore, there will be an antivirus program shipping with 10.7.
Rhema
Sep 16, 01:54 PM
ok, so...I wrote this really really really long message, and by the time I had submited it, I had been logged out, and so I lost the whole message. So I'm going to re-write it, but in a much shorter version
Basically I listed all the Ideas I had for the Apple Smartphone. What made the message so long was that I also explained why I wanted each type of feature. I'm going to try and stay away from doing that this time and just list the features but keep in mind that I agree that a lot of these things are a stretch.
- first, call it iMobile instead of iPhone
HARDWARE
- have a full size screen that is a touchscreen.
- have the screen slide up to reveal the keyboard
- have atleast 30 gigs of storage.
- iSight that can rotate. For taking images and having the screen as a viewer, and having the iSight pointed at you for video conferencing
- Use the EvDO technology that the sony treo700 uses that is supposed to be "near broadband speeds"
SOFTWARE
- iPod interface
- mobile iTunes Store, able to download music, shows, and movies on the go.
- ability to record sounds and voices
- ability to record video
- mobile versions of Mail, Address Book, Calender, iPhoto (displaying photos you take or upload) and able to sync perfectly
- mobile Safari
- mobile stickies (more like a notepad type feature)
- bluetooth ( using headsets, but also using the phone as a remote for keynote and the soon to be released iTV
- radio tuner ( i know this is pretty simple, but why not?)
- GPS like system, or atleast a built in mobile google maps? (possibly even mobile google earth
-mobile iChat (since iChat can connect to aim and other services)
- mobile widgets (my sidekick has a lot of programs that you can download for it, most of them being a lot more powerful than most widgets) imagine having the "find the cheapest gas station" widget, get our your phone, bring it up, put in the zip code of wherever you happen to be, see where the cheapest place to get gas is.
- the ability to remote desktop into your mac. (would have to install software on your mac that would create connection for you) gives you the ability just to browse through you desktop's files, if you forgot a file that you need and lets you download it on to your phone.
- Also, lets you use the phone as a bluetooth modem for your computer.
I'm sure there is more..but I'll stop there
Basically I listed all the Ideas I had for the Apple Smartphone. What made the message so long was that I also explained why I wanted each type of feature. I'm going to try and stay away from doing that this time and just list the features but keep in mind that I agree that a lot of these things are a stretch.
- first, call it iMobile instead of iPhone
HARDWARE
- have a full size screen that is a touchscreen.
- have the screen slide up to reveal the keyboard
- have atleast 30 gigs of storage.
- iSight that can rotate. For taking images and having the screen as a viewer, and having the iSight pointed at you for video conferencing
- Use the EvDO technology that the sony treo700 uses that is supposed to be "near broadband speeds"
SOFTWARE
- iPod interface
- mobile iTunes Store, able to download music, shows, and movies on the go.
- ability to record sounds and voices
- ability to record video
- mobile versions of Mail, Address Book, Calender, iPhoto (displaying photos you take or upload) and able to sync perfectly
- mobile Safari
- mobile stickies (more like a notepad type feature)
- bluetooth ( using headsets, but also using the phone as a remote for keynote and the soon to be released iTV
- radio tuner ( i know this is pretty simple, but why not?)
- GPS like system, or atleast a built in mobile google maps? (possibly even mobile google earth
-mobile iChat (since iChat can connect to aim and other services)
- mobile widgets (my sidekick has a lot of programs that you can download for it, most of them being a lot more powerful than most widgets) imagine having the "find the cheapest gas station" widget, get our your phone, bring it up, put in the zip code of wherever you happen to be, see where the cheapest place to get gas is.
- the ability to remote desktop into your mac. (would have to install software on your mac that would create connection for you) gives you the ability just to browse through you desktop's files, if you forgot a file that you need and lets you download it on to your phone.
- Also, lets you use the phone as a bluetooth modem for your computer.
I'm sure there is more..but I'll stop there
Dorkington
Apr 18, 12:07 PM
That's incredible! How can that be the case? Here it is 28 days paid days off if you work a normal 5 day week.
Welcome to America. Any regulation is called "socialism" here and painted as "Anti American". :(
Welcome to America. Any regulation is called "socialism" here and painted as "Anti American". :(
peeInMyPantz
Sep 13, 11:34 PM
I think they are going to hold this for quite a while since they just released their new ipods. Since consumers are rushing to get the new ipods now.. holding it back a few months will make these ipod-owners think about buying iphones to replace their new ipods. So instead of releasing iphone now and let the consumers choose one of them.. they will want them to buy both..
I think it's the same reason why they aren't releasing merom versions of MB/MBP before school starts, because this is the time when everybody is rushing to get new laptops. Sale will probably fall quite a bit after that... so when everyone has a yonah MB/MBP... they then releases merom MB/MBP to stimulate sales again during school period.. tempting yonah owners to replace their laptops...
haha... just my opinion
I think it's the same reason why they aren't releasing merom versions of MB/MBP before school starts, because this is the time when everybody is rushing to get new laptops. Sale will probably fall quite a bit after that... so when everyone has a yonah MB/MBP... they then releases merom MB/MBP to stimulate sales again during school period.. tempting yonah owners to replace their laptops...
haha... just my opinion
EagerDragon
Sep 4, 07:18 PM
No next gen DVD in the 23" yet, I guess.
Next gen DVD is still in the air and still too expensive, would raise the price by at least 700 (likely more). Not sure most people are ready to shell that much yet.
Next gen DVD is still in the air and still too expensive, would raise the price by at least 700 (likely more). Not sure most people are ready to shell that much yet.
KeriJane
Mar 19, 11:24 AM
Hi munkery
Thank you for the helpful link. It explained a lot.
I was wondering why Linux and OSX are virus-resistant and the page you linked to explains it well.
The old "market share" argument didn't make sense to me because:
1- the fame associated with writing the first major Mac (or Linux) virus would be immense.
2- there's at least some hatred of Apple out there amongst the technically proficient. (geeks). I've met such a person..... Very smart, very pro-Linux and if you mention you like Macs or own one.... BOOM! :eek:
That guy and probably lots of others really, really hates Macs. If he could he'd take down Apple in an instant.
3- if the conspiracy theories are true, the AV companies and/or Microsoft would love to shatter Apple's image of invulnerability to viruses. Even if they aren't actively trying to develop one, they wouldn't mind it if someone else did.
Thanks to all for the insights,
Keri
Thank you for the helpful link. It explained a lot.
I was wondering why Linux and OSX are virus-resistant and the page you linked to explains it well.
The old "market share" argument didn't make sense to me because:
1- the fame associated with writing the first major Mac (or Linux) virus would be immense.
2- there's at least some hatred of Apple out there amongst the technically proficient. (geeks). I've met such a person..... Very smart, very pro-Linux and if you mention you like Macs or own one.... BOOM! :eek:
That guy and probably lots of others really, really hates Macs. If he could he'd take down Apple in an instant.
3- if the conspiracy theories are true, the AV companies and/or Microsoft would love to shatter Apple's image of invulnerability to viruses. Even if they aren't actively trying to develop one, they wouldn't mind it if someone else did.
Thanks to all for the insights,
Keri
bushido
Apr 25, 01:46 PM
would be nice timing to put my late 09 mbp to rest
mygoldens
Mar 29, 01:05 PM
Ya, right ! :eek:
This guy must be a Windoze Fanboy!
This guy must be a Windoze Fanboy!
No comments:
Post a Comment