rhoydotp
Mar 31, 12:13 PM
interface looks complete, let's just hope that skin can be changed.
agreed ... i like the layout but the skin. ugly :eek:
agreed ... i like the layout but the skin. ugly :eek:
Doctor Q
Dec 1, 02:02 PM
iAdware apparently works by silently installing a system library. That sounds like a vulnerability that Apple could easily fix, by requiring Admin privileges, issuing a warning, and/or prompting for an Admin password.
lilo777
Apr 23, 12:48 AM
You enjoy seeing every issue from the perspective of someone who wants Apple to fail.
Apple cares very deeply about their product, which is why they don't give in to every spec junkie who demands the latest and greatest immediately. The current chips don't give a usable battery life in Apple's eyes. If you want to get a phone that eats batteries that's your business, but Apple doesn't have an interest in developing anything like that.
Nope. I see every issue from the consumer perspective - as I should (being a consumer). Any other perspective would be an abomination (unless for those who hold tons of AAPL shares).
Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.
They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.
I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?
And there we have it friends! This guy has no clue what he's talking about. There are no hybrid LTE/3G chips available yet, so the multiple chips thing has nothing to do with GSM/CDMA. If Apple wanted to support 3G AND LTE which they would have to do considering how scarce LTE is at the moment, the only way for them to do it is to use two chips. Battery life would drain.
Here's a site for you to consider: Thunderbolt Battery Life (http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/03/18/htc-thunderbolt-battery-life/)
This is what people are talking about when they say the iPhone's battery life would be horrible. It has nothing to do with a hybrid CDMA/GSM chip, and has everything to do with the lack of a hybrid 3G/LTE chip.
In fact, hybrid CDMA/GSM chips exist, and are already being used by Apple.
You miss the point. I did not investigate the details about the number of chips. Not everyone cares. The point here is that there many people who want LTE and the there is Apple with their "single phone fits all" strategy. Here is a piece of relevant information for you from Information Week:
"In its recently quarterly earnings report, Verizon Wireless noted that more than 500,000 customers signed up for LTE services and/or devices during its most recent quarter. Add that to the 65,000 who signed up in December, and Verizon has about 565,000 people using its next-generation wireless network. At this rate, Verizon may have more than 2 million 4G users by the end of the year.
Of the 500,000 who signed up for 4G services this quarter, more than half (260,000) chose a 4G phone--the HTC Thunderbolt--that went on sale in mid-March. It scored a significant number of customers in its first two weeks of availability. That means between January 1 and March 15, about 240,000 people purchased other 4G devices, such as USB modems."
As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries.
Apple cares very deeply about their product, which is why they don't give in to every spec junkie who demands the latest and greatest immediately. The current chips don't give a usable battery life in Apple's eyes. If you want to get a phone that eats batteries that's your business, but Apple doesn't have an interest in developing anything like that.
Nope. I see every issue from the consumer perspective - as I should (being a consumer). Any other perspective would be an abomination (unless for those who hold tons of AAPL shares).
Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.
They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.
I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?
And there we have it friends! This guy has no clue what he's talking about. There are no hybrid LTE/3G chips available yet, so the multiple chips thing has nothing to do with GSM/CDMA. If Apple wanted to support 3G AND LTE which they would have to do considering how scarce LTE is at the moment, the only way for them to do it is to use two chips. Battery life would drain.
Here's a site for you to consider: Thunderbolt Battery Life (http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/03/18/htc-thunderbolt-battery-life/)
This is what people are talking about when they say the iPhone's battery life would be horrible. It has nothing to do with a hybrid CDMA/GSM chip, and has everything to do with the lack of a hybrid 3G/LTE chip.
In fact, hybrid CDMA/GSM chips exist, and are already being used by Apple.
You miss the point. I did not investigate the details about the number of chips. Not everyone cares. The point here is that there many people who want LTE and the there is Apple with their "single phone fits all" strategy. Here is a piece of relevant information for you from Information Week:
"In its recently quarterly earnings report, Verizon Wireless noted that more than 500,000 customers signed up for LTE services and/or devices during its most recent quarter. Add that to the 65,000 who signed up in December, and Verizon has about 565,000 people using its next-generation wireless network. At this rate, Verizon may have more than 2 million 4G users by the end of the year.
Of the 500,000 who signed up for 4G services this quarter, more than half (260,000) chose a 4G phone--the HTC Thunderbolt--that went on sale in mid-March. It scored a significant number of customers in its first two weeks of availability. That means between January 1 and March 15, about 240,000 people purchased other 4G devices, such as USB modems."
As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries.
trekkie604
Apr 22, 05:43 PM
That thing is extremely ugly...
more...
jazz1
Apr 14, 08:16 PM
4 hours to download for the ATT iPad version? The ATT iPhone4 version only took 6 minutes on the same computer. I guess I'll wait until tomorrow.
MorphingDragon
Apr 16, 09:09 PM
Well, for starters, to prevent the damn year 2038 problem.
Don't ruin the fun. We still have to make 2038 theories about the world ending. :D
Don't ruin the fun. We still have to make 2038 theories about the world ending. :D
more...
rjfiske
Aug 15, 05:09 PM
Call me crazy, but I'd not be surprised if Leopard was a free update for Tiger owners - if not all Mac owners.
You're crazy. :) But one thing I would like to see is a free upgrade to iLife for everyone who upgrades Leopard. Or else some kind of Leopard / iLife buy-together discount. That would be most welcome.
rjf
You're crazy. :) But one thing I would like to see is a free upgrade to iLife for everyone who upgrades Leopard. Or else some kind of Leopard / iLife buy-together discount. That would be most welcome.
rjf
NickZac
Dec 29, 01:51 PM
How can she afford that?!
more...
Consultant
Apr 12, 09:05 AM
iPhone adds iPod integration! Oh wait isn't the fall event usually for iPod touch and iPod? :confused:
xVeinx
Oct 23, 02:28 PM
How would an operating system KNOW it is being run in virtualization? It cannot determine the difference from a real computer. We are talking about Vista like it is an artificial intelligence of some kind.
I suppose that depends on how you define artifical intelligence... Anyway, to answer your point, Vista can determine if you are running the software in a virtual environment. Virtualization requires the OS to be embedded in further software, and that software has distinct signitures that can be pulled out by the OS. It might be possible to add patches to prevent Vista from seeing those signatures, but who knows.
On another front, if MS were wise, they would take some advice from Apple's iTunes and use a deactivation feature. This would prevent a huge stress on their phone support and tremendously add to user happiness. If there ever became an issue with Windows, or someone needed to upgrade, then they could go ahead and deactivate that copy of windows or deauthorize the account (through safe mode in the case of OS problems). Then, the software could be reinstalled without worry and reactivated.
I suppose that depends on how you define artifical intelligence... Anyway, to answer your point, Vista can determine if you are running the software in a virtual environment. Virtualization requires the OS to be embedded in further software, and that software has distinct signitures that can be pulled out by the OS. It might be possible to add patches to prevent Vista from seeing those signatures, but who knows.
On another front, if MS were wise, they would take some advice from Apple's iTunes and use a deactivation feature. This would prevent a huge stress on their phone support and tremendously add to user happiness. If there ever became an issue with Windows, or someone needed to upgrade, then they could go ahead and deactivate that copy of windows or deauthorize the account (through safe mode in the case of OS problems). Then, the software could be reinstalled without worry and reactivated.
more...
kingtj
Jun 24, 03:18 PM
I'm honestly not too surprised. On one hand, Apple keeps pushing the iPod Touch as a great little portable gaming system (so kids are getting them left and right), yet on the other, they make it a big pain to prevent a kid from purchasing unwanted software on it.
I know first-hand, because my g/f used to work for Apple, and got refurbished iPod Touches for both of her young kids, after they were constantly borrowing her iPhone. My own daughter got a refurbished Touch last Xmas as well.
I thought I'd be slick and create a whole new iTunes account for my kid that wasn't linked to any credit/debit card at all. That way, she can only purchase FREE apps unless I pre-load her account with some money from a gift-card first. (My g/f didn't do this, and her 3 year old started buying herself quite a few games one day! Until then, she just assumed said 3 year old wouldn't even be capable of navigating the App Store on her own and doing it!)
But then I realized all the little games we bought and put on my iPhone a long time ago were not going to be transferable to her iPod Touch without re-purchasing them. No way I was going to re-buy them, and she was getting all upset she had stuff on my phone that wasn't on her Touch. So I wound up redoing her Touch so it shared MY iTunes account. Not happy about that though, and sure enough, despite my warnings, she bought about $10 in software one time!
Apple really needs to re-think the way this stuff works. I'd be all for something like Android's store apparently does where you can request a refund for anything you download within the first 24 hours.... but frankly, some people will still abuse that too. (They'll start using it as a "free rental" service, grabbing things for a day and then requesting refunds.) So maybe a setup where you can refund apps up to 24 hours later up to the first X number of times, and then the account reverts to only giving refunds within the first hour or 30 minutes?
haha, this makes it onto MR?
My little cousin purchased $2,820.75 from the app store on an iPod Touch. And Apple wasn't going to refund any of it until a transcript from an internal chat was somehow included in a email to my Aunt that consisted of very rude talk behind her back.
I have the emails, but my aunt and uncle aren't finished with the fiasco with Apple's legal team, so I can't show them.
I know first-hand, because my g/f used to work for Apple, and got refurbished iPod Touches for both of her young kids, after they were constantly borrowing her iPhone. My own daughter got a refurbished Touch last Xmas as well.
I thought I'd be slick and create a whole new iTunes account for my kid that wasn't linked to any credit/debit card at all. That way, she can only purchase FREE apps unless I pre-load her account with some money from a gift-card first. (My g/f didn't do this, and her 3 year old started buying herself quite a few games one day! Until then, she just assumed said 3 year old wouldn't even be capable of navigating the App Store on her own and doing it!)
But then I realized all the little games we bought and put on my iPhone a long time ago were not going to be transferable to her iPod Touch without re-purchasing them. No way I was going to re-buy them, and she was getting all upset she had stuff on my phone that wasn't on her Touch. So I wound up redoing her Touch so it shared MY iTunes account. Not happy about that though, and sure enough, despite my warnings, she bought about $10 in software one time!
Apple really needs to re-think the way this stuff works. I'd be all for something like Android's store apparently does where you can request a refund for anything you download within the first 24 hours.... but frankly, some people will still abuse that too. (They'll start using it as a "free rental" service, grabbing things for a day and then requesting refunds.) So maybe a setup where you can refund apps up to 24 hours later up to the first X number of times, and then the account reverts to only giving refunds within the first hour or 30 minutes?
haha, this makes it onto MR?
My little cousin purchased $2,820.75 from the app store on an iPod Touch. And Apple wasn't going to refund any of it until a transcript from an internal chat was somehow included in a email to my Aunt that consisted of very rude talk behind her back.
I have the emails, but my aunt and uncle aren't finished with the fiasco with Apple's legal team, so I can't show them.
Da Dealer
Dec 8, 03:18 PM
it still wont run on hulu
more...
obeygiant
May 1, 10:07 PM
Good weekend for Obama. He got even with both Donald Trump and Osama bin Laden.
http://i55.tinypic.com/20tfo2b.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/20tfo2b.jpg
mdriftmeyer
Apr 16, 10:31 PM
Apple bought OS X too. :D
I'm arguing that both were massive undertakings by both parties. My OS X example was tainted with sarcasm if you didn't catch the little :rolleyes: there.
Both OS X and Chrome OS (and Android, and iOS) borrow heavily from others, either through acquisitions or from the open source community. To claim Google is any inferior here is just trying to stir the pot, especially calling the poster Troll, that is just insulting and uncalled for.
Both companies deserve props from providing the software they do, neither deserves scorn that some posters here like to dish out.
So what ? OS X is Mach/XNU, Apple didn't make that. It's also a GNU/Berkeley userland, Apple didn't make that either. Again guys, drop the non-sense competition, this thread is about a release of OS X, not some type of Google bashing contest.
Clarifications:
XNU is post 1996 merger. Mach pre merger was 2.9. Post merger is a mix of Mach 3.x with XNU and FreeBSD, plus Apple's own advances.
Everyone who worked on OS X at Apple in Core Engineering was a merging of NeXT Engineering with some Apple Engineers and future talent. Apple bought NeXT for the IP, Code Bases, Tools, Engineering Talent and Leadership.
BSD is not GNU.
I'm arguing that both were massive undertakings by both parties. My OS X example was tainted with sarcasm if you didn't catch the little :rolleyes: there.
Both OS X and Chrome OS (and Android, and iOS) borrow heavily from others, either through acquisitions or from the open source community. To claim Google is any inferior here is just trying to stir the pot, especially calling the poster Troll, that is just insulting and uncalled for.
Both companies deserve props from providing the software they do, neither deserves scorn that some posters here like to dish out.
So what ? OS X is Mach/XNU, Apple didn't make that. It's also a GNU/Berkeley userland, Apple didn't make that either. Again guys, drop the non-sense competition, this thread is about a release of OS X, not some type of Google bashing contest.
Clarifications:
XNU is post 1996 merger. Mach pre merger was 2.9. Post merger is a mix of Mach 3.x with XNU and FreeBSD, plus Apple's own advances.
Everyone who worked on OS X at Apple in Core Engineering was a merging of NeXT Engineering with some Apple Engineers and future talent. Apple bought NeXT for the IP, Code Bases, Tools, Engineering Talent and Leadership.
BSD is not GNU.
more...
whooleytoo
Jul 25, 05:56 AM
This would be a nice UI for ebooks - just swipe your finger/hand across the display to turn the page.
The None-Touch (presumably so named as it sounds more pleasing than "Non-Touch", and is a play on "One-Touch") name would imply that at least some control can be achieved without touching the screen.
The None-Touch (presumably so named as it sounds more pleasing than "Non-Touch", and is a play on "One-Touch") name would imply that at least some control can be achieved without touching the screen.
c.hilding
Dec 4, 12:41 AM
I agree. Tough love is best here. It's better to have the vulnerabilities exposed in this manner than in a live scenario. Let's just hope the press from this is enough for Apple to fix the problem before we have something bigger than a proof-of-concept exploit.
Yeah, when the poll was loading I expected 80-90% to be concerned about security, turns out only 40% are. So many ignorant "blissful" people that excuse Apple and think "It's Apple, of course it's safe". Obviously it's not. Ten serious exploits in about as many days of looking (they spent 30 days total, about an equal amount on linux and mac, and the rest on other OS's, so 10 should be right) and that is just scratching the surface. I was shocked that Apple actually had so many vulnerabilities, and for those that didn't find it scary that someone can install a program with kernel access simply by having you download their dmg file (not even opening it), well they're just being silly and need to realize that this is and some extremely bad things can happen if we are to go by that analysts words (saying OS X is not hot on security and that it is easy to find new hacks). :p
Yeah, when the poll was loading I expected 80-90% to be concerned about security, turns out only 40% are. So many ignorant "blissful" people that excuse Apple and think "It's Apple, of course it's safe". Obviously it's not. Ten serious exploits in about as many days of looking (they spent 30 days total, about an equal amount on linux and mac, and the rest on other OS's, so 10 should be right) and that is just scratching the surface. I was shocked that Apple actually had so many vulnerabilities, and for those that didn't find it scary that someone can install a program with kernel access simply by having you download their dmg file (not even opening it), well they're just being silly and need to realize that this is and some extremely bad things can happen if we are to go by that analysts words (saying OS X is not hot on security and that it is easy to find new hacks). :p
more...
Teddy's
Aug 15, 01:31 PM
Still... meh.
oh... come on! :mad:
oh... come on! :mad:
LastName
Mar 31, 11:57 AM
That is really, really ugly. Like, really ugly. I cannot imagine having that brown turd interface open on my second monitor all day... blargh!
+1. I like the unified layout but the color would make me gouge my eyes out to make it stop.
+1. I like the unified layout but the color would make me gouge my eyes out to make it stop.
WeegieMac
Apr 16, 09:52 AM
How is that different from how Apple "acquired" iOS and OS X ? Yet no one is going to claim Apple didn't build those 2 OSes.
Again, some of you guys need to put the Google hate to rest. This is not the thread for it and to diminish their efforts on Chrome OS and Android is to do the same to OS X since the histories and origins are similar (acquisitions and open source projects).
And I will not stand by anyone who does that to Apple's efforts with OS X.
Google bought Android and with Schmidt on the Apple board hoovering up ideas from the iPhone, Android became what it is today.
Anybody who refutes that is either blind or stupid.
I loathe Google for their Microsoft-esque lack of imagination, just as much as I loathe Samsung and their utterly lazy attempt at R&D for their Galaxy S smartphones, the logic of which equates to:
iPhone 3GS design + we like it + let's copy it + bigger screen + cheap imitation look = Galaxy S.
iPhone 4 design + we like it + let's copy it + bigger screen + cheap imitation look = Galaxy S2.
Again, anybody who cannot see the obvious similarities is either blind or stupid.
Again, some of you guys need to put the Google hate to rest. This is not the thread for it and to diminish their efforts on Chrome OS and Android is to do the same to OS X since the histories and origins are similar (acquisitions and open source projects).
And I will not stand by anyone who does that to Apple's efforts with OS X.
Google bought Android and with Schmidt on the Apple board hoovering up ideas from the iPhone, Android became what it is today.
Anybody who refutes that is either blind or stupid.
I loathe Google for their Microsoft-esque lack of imagination, just as much as I loathe Samsung and their utterly lazy attempt at R&D for their Galaxy S smartphones, the logic of which equates to:
iPhone 3GS design + we like it + let's copy it + bigger screen + cheap imitation look = Galaxy S.
iPhone 4 design + we like it + let's copy it + bigger screen + cheap imitation look = Galaxy S2.
Again, anybody who cannot see the obvious similarities is either blind or stupid.
longtimelurker
Apr 28, 09:00 PM
White just looks bigger than black.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
Stellarola
Mar 31, 06:46 PM
265 negatives. 95 positives.
Wow, tough crowd.
IMO it doesn't look THAT bad. You all have to understand Apple is really pushing hard to get (iOS) iPad users to switch to OS X for their desktop needs as opposed to Windows switches. There are so many iOS features that are being built-in, I guess Apple figures they'll add the same visual cues in their applications to make it a simpler transition.
It's funny though, the OS itself is more monochrome this time around, but their applications are much more...."festive". :|
-Stell
Wow, tough crowd.
IMO it doesn't look THAT bad. You all have to understand Apple is really pushing hard to get (iOS) iPad users to switch to OS X for their desktop needs as opposed to Windows switches. There are so many iOS features that are being built-in, I guess Apple figures they'll add the same visual cues in their applications to make it a simpler transition.
It's funny though, the OS itself is more monochrome this time around, but their applications are much more...."festive". :|
-Stell
bluebomberman
Jul 10, 05:00 PM
As for being harsh, it seems like every time a thread on subject gets started, someone says Pages is only really suitable for newsletters, and not for "serious" writing. I find that most of the people who say this haven't gotten much past the template selection window. They see all those newsletter and flier templates and assume that this all Pages is good for. They've probably never created a template of their own and so are missing one of Pages' most powerful features.
Part of the problem is the way they market it. There was such an emphasis on templates and graphic-intensive stuff when it was first demoed in MacWorld 2005 that it's hard to think it can be a good word processor. My first thought was how it looked 100x better than Microsoft Publisher.
Again, I think this latest rumor shows that Apple will address some of the perceptions (or misperceptions, depending on who you ask) by allowing people to dive into word processing mode and adding better search and research functions. It just might make me a convert.
Part of the problem is the way they market it. There was such an emphasis on templates and graphic-intensive stuff when it was first demoed in MacWorld 2005 that it's hard to think it can be a good word processor. My first thought was how it looked 100x better than Microsoft Publisher.
Again, I think this latest rumor shows that Apple will address some of the perceptions (or misperceptions, depending on who you ask) by allowing people to dive into word processing mode and adding better search and research functions. It just might make me a convert.
Socratic
Apr 29, 06:10 PM
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
At the moment the record labels are pretty much Apple's bitch. They don't like that, and in splitting the digital market (by giving a leg up -ie lower costing- to Amazon and probably a few others) they eventually restore their power to set the terms. Apple is a vendor for their product, yet is in almost complete control. That's normally the other way around.
At the moment the record labels are pretty much Apple's bitch. They don't like that, and in splitting the digital market (by giving a leg up -ie lower costing- to Amazon and probably a few others) they eventually restore their power to set the terms. Apple is a vendor for their product, yet is in almost complete control. That's normally the other way around.
KnightWRX
Apr 14, 04:30 AM
It would be interesting to compare Fibre Channel with Thunderbolt. Apart from TB integrating video, TB looks a lot like an evolution of Fibre Channel.
Hum, you have no idea what Fiber channel is if you seriously claim that. Fiber channel is a networking protocol for storage essentially, Thunderbolt is a host based technology. Call me when Thunderbolt can be switched, redundant, do LUN provisioning and can be extended over a MAN to offer multi-site storage.
Hum, you have no idea what Fiber channel is if you seriously claim that. Fiber channel is a networking protocol for storage essentially, Thunderbolt is a host based technology. Call me when Thunderbolt can be switched, redundant, do LUN provisioning and can be extended over a MAN to offer multi-site storage.
No comments:
Post a Comment