ten-oak-druid
Apr 28, 04:17 PM
I'll tell you who care...
case manufacturers that Apple is constantly screwing.
No they don't. They would if this were a true story.
case manufacturers that Apple is constantly screwing.
No they don't. They would if this were a true story.
weckart
Apr 14, 01:20 PM
Another pointless 666MB download for probably less than 1MB of actual update. Can Apple learn to patch its products more efficiently?
siii
Mar 31, 02:25 PM
Blurgh! I really dislike all the 'faux UI' popping up everywhere...not a fan of it on my iOS products and certainly not Mac OS... it looks tacky...lets hope we get a choice... That fake leather looks so shite, id rather have a simple clean UI thank you...what happened to apple's good taste?
DeathChill
Apr 23, 12:27 AM
So many people just love to see every issue from the Apple perspective. There are people who get paid for that. Should not you - as a consumer - care more about the gadget you want than Apple success?
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.
Apple does not have to use two chips. They could just design separate phone for Verizon (just like iPhone 4) which does not support GSM. Not ideal but that's where technology is today. At least Verizon customers could enjoy iPhone 5 with LTE.
They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.
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.
Apple does not have to use two chips. They could just design separate phone for Verizon (just like iPhone 4) which does not support GSM. Not ideal but that's where technology is today. At least Verizon customers could enjoy iPhone 5 with LTE.
They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.
CFreymarc
Mar 29, 08:25 AM
Sadly, Vegas will cost you more for a week than SF (if you want to do it "right").
And doing San Francisco "right" is close if not more. At least in Vegas you have massive competition for your entertainment dollar. San Francisco entertainment venues is this strange, cabal like maze of approval processes with some social engineering objective hidden from the public.
Hotels, restaurants and other "substance" costs are a hell of a lot cheaper in Vegas than in San Francisco. I did Vegas for less than a grand in a week last summer just to see how far I could stretch my dollar. I ended up with free rooms, free food, complementary shows and spent my money on what matters -- booze, guns and women!
And doing San Francisco "right" is close if not more. At least in Vegas you have massive competition for your entertainment dollar. San Francisco entertainment venues is this strange, cabal like maze of approval processes with some social engineering objective hidden from the public.
Hotels, restaurants and other "substance" costs are a hell of a lot cheaper in Vegas than in San Francisco. I did Vegas for less than a grand in a week last summer just to see how far I could stretch my dollar. I ended up with free rooms, free food, complementary shows and spent my money on what matters -- booze, guns and women!
MacRumors
Jun 6, 01:19 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/06/eleven-year-old-accidentally-downloads-1000-app/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/06/06/020527-BarMax.jpg
An eleven-year-old boy in Northern California accidentally downloaded (http://www.necn.com/06/05/10/Boy-accidentally-downloads-99900-Smart-p/landing.html?blockID=247714) the $999.99 BarMax bar exam preparation application (iTunes link (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/barmax-ca/id345722008?mt=8)) using an iPod touch. He didn't mean to make the purchase and was surprised when it started to download the 1GB app. His mother was equally shocked, especially after she learned the price and that her son had not been prompted for an iTunes password.
They paused the download and went to an Apple store but were told that the store couldn't help. However, the boy's mother then emailed Apple and received a return phone call telling her that they would receive a full refund.
Article Link: Eleven-year-old Accidentally Downloads $1000 App (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/06/eleven-year-old-accidentally-downloads-1000-app/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/06/06/020527-BarMax.jpg
An eleven-year-old boy in Northern California accidentally downloaded (http://www.necn.com/06/05/10/Boy-accidentally-downloads-99900-Smart-p/landing.html?blockID=247714) the $999.99 BarMax bar exam preparation application (iTunes link (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/barmax-ca/id345722008?mt=8)) using an iPod touch. He didn't mean to make the purchase and was surprised when it started to download the 1GB app. His mother was equally shocked, especially after she learned the price and that her son had not been prompted for an iTunes password.
They paused the download and went to an Apple store but were told that the store couldn't help. However, the boy's mother then emailed Apple and received a return phone call telling her that they would receive a full refund.
Article Link: Eleven-year-old Accidentally Downloads $1000 App (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/06/eleven-year-old-accidentally-downloads-1000-app/)
milo
Jun 23, 04:32 PM
Aside from the whole "personal responsibility" debate, why doesn't Apple just allow cancel/refund of purchases as long as it is done before the download is finished (meaning it's impossible to use)?
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 12, 05:37 AM
Usually, when a new technology comes out from Apple like Thunderbolt, (mini display port in look a like), I usually think "Why would other "non" Apple manufactures like WD, Promise etc... adopt Thunderbolt? as USB 3.0 or eSATA is their bracket... where as Apple likes to keep to themselves only tailoring to their own devices (eg. using WDS (or extenting wireless via Airport Express), for example. is not possible unless you have Time Capsule (Apple) )
I guess I was wrong when I saw this one on MacRumors.
The major difference between TB and FW adoption is that FW was 100% Apple whereas TB was envisioned by Apple and then handed off to Intel for development and implementation.
Since Intel is a major supplier of MBs to PC box manufacturers it can more easily push TB than Apple could FW. Moreover USB 3 is an Intel creation too so it has even greater power to play puppet master.
I guess I was wrong when I saw this one on MacRumors.
The major difference between TB and FW adoption is that FW was 100% Apple whereas TB was envisioned by Apple and then handed off to Intel for development and implementation.
Since Intel is a major supplier of MBs to PC box manufacturers it can more easily push TB than Apple could FW. Moreover USB 3 is an Intel creation too so it has even greater power to play puppet master.
leekohler
Apr 27, 02:24 PM
it's an observation, whether you like it or not. But anyway, my post didn't revolve around that point, you just blew out of proportion. Claiming i'm "bored" in your little rant is comical.
Think what you want, but it was still a crappy thing to assume.
Think what you want, but it was still a crappy thing to assume.
Full of Win
Apr 24, 10:13 PM
whats not to say someone just changed the carrier name? I don't own an iphone but I did search and its totally possible.
There is more to this than the carrier tag.
I don't see a reason apple would need to create an iPhone for T-Mobile if the AT&T plan goes through. If it's rejected than maybe thats a reason then to possibly go on T-Mobile.
As noted in this thread... adding an extra band opens oter networks besides TM. Also, if purchased, TM cannot flick a switch on all their towers to make them at&t compliant.
There is more to this than the carrier tag.
I don't see a reason apple would need to create an iPhone for T-Mobile if the AT&T plan goes through. If it's rejected than maybe thats a reason then to possibly go on T-Mobile.
As noted in this thread... adding an extra band opens oter networks besides TM. Also, if purchased, TM cannot flick a switch on all their towers to make them at&t compliant.
cloud 9
Aug 20, 06:05 AM
do you need to have a zillion gigabites free to use time machine in a decent way?
for example, if you have a 1 gigabite film, and u delete it 'putting it in the trash, and empty trash', it's still going to be on your hard drive, taking up space, right? and will it also save your cookies, bookmarks, deleted programs,
i rarely delete stuff by accident...so i hope this can be turned off, and won't interrupt much of my normal workflow, the way things are deleted now.
for example, if you have a 1 gigabite film, and u delete it 'putting it in the trash, and empty trash', it's still going to be on your hard drive, taking up space, right? and will it also save your cookies, bookmarks, deleted programs,
i rarely delete stuff by accident...so i hope this can be turned off, and won't interrupt much of my normal workflow, the way things are deleted now.
Bonsai1214
Jan 28, 02:29 PM
have you noticed a big difference with the amp? i have the same headphones, which are fantastic, btw.
uDAC is not an amp. its a DAC.
uDAC is not an amp. its a DAC.
Plutonius
Apr 25, 05:02 PM
So he will not feel left out, a vote for "Don't Panic" :D .
SactoGuy18
Apr 29, 11:18 PM
I believe that Amazon uses 256 kbps variable bit rate compression for their MP3 Download store. Why MP3? The reason is simple: it allows maximum compatibility with all music players that can play back MP3 files out there. Sure, Amazon could use the AAC 256 kbps VBR format, but outside of the iPod support for the AAC format is iffy at best (only the higher end players from Sandisk's Sansa line and Creative support AAC).
RBR2
Apr 14, 02:25 PM
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.
Why don't you start reading things before making your incendiary comments?
:rolleyes:
Why don't you start reading things before making your incendiary comments?
:rolleyes:
Waybo
Apr 4, 04:57 PM
This is the absolute worst winter in the New England states ... I am disenchanted by any more snow and look forward to some warmth...
I keep going back to this iris ... the rich colors of spring popping out against the monotone stalks that feels so much like winter. I'm really glad you took the extra effort to keep the hint of color in the back flower as well. My 3" high daffodils were buried in 8" of snow on Thursday. It's all gone now, but I, too, and waiting for spring to arrive in New Hampshire!
I keep going back to this iris ... the rich colors of spring popping out against the monotone stalks that feels so much like winter. I'm really glad you took the extra effort to keep the hint of color in the back flower as well. My 3" high daffodils were buried in 8" of snow on Thursday. It's all gone now, but I, too, and waiting for spring to arrive in New Hampshire!
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:02 AM
The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.
It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.
Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses to also run the same licensed copy of Vista running natively on the licensed device in a virtualization environment as well.
In other words, if you purchase or build a PC with Windows Vista Ultimate, you can use that same installation and license to install it in a virtualization environment on that same platform. That goes beyond what has been done on any other platform for virtualization, and why the limitation is specifically delineated on Vista Home:
You may not use the software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is already installed on a licensed device.
[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in the EULA in the first place.
The Vista Business/Ultimate EULA on the same topic states:
6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
This is because Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses so that you can use the same copy, legally ALSO within a virtualization environment on that same system. This is more than is possible with any other commercial OS, from a licensing perspective. The restrictions on Vista Home are ONLY restricting you from using it in a VM on the device where it's already installed. If you buy Vista Home standalone as a retail box, and it's not installed anywhere else, you are free, legally and technically, to use it in a VM to your heart's content.
It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.
Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses to also run the same licensed copy of Vista running natively on the licensed device in a virtualization environment as well.
In other words, if you purchase or build a PC with Windows Vista Ultimate, you can use that same installation and license to install it in a virtualization environment on that same platform. That goes beyond what has been done on any other platform for virtualization, and why the limitation is specifically delineated on Vista Home:
You may not use the software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is already installed on a licensed device.
[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in the EULA in the first place.
The Vista Business/Ultimate EULA on the same topic states:
6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
This is because Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses so that you can use the same copy, legally ALSO within a virtualization environment on that same system. This is more than is possible with any other commercial OS, from a licensing perspective. The restrictions on Vista Home are ONLY restricting you from using it in a VM on the device where it's already installed. If you buy Vista Home standalone as a retail box, and it's not installed anywhere else, you are free, legally and technically, to use it in a VM to your heart's content.
wtfk
Dec 1, 07:59 PM
I'm still waiting to hear that someone--anyone--has actually been exploited by one of these "exploits."
ECUpirate44
Apr 13, 02:52 PM
Great. A 4K magical TV.
solafide
Apr 29, 02:48 PM
I wonder if this new pricing scheme is being enabled by the record labels with lower wholesale pricing to Amazon (to try, yet again, to take power out of Apple's hands), or if Amazon is simply doing this at a loss?
Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?
For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).
Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?
For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).
jellomizer
Oct 23, 12:28 PM
If Vista can run soley in a virtuallized environment without breaking the EULA, but not be installed on a machine that also is using it in a virtualized way. How does this affect anyone-(Mac or PC)?
If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?
For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?
What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:
Very confused about how this affects anyone?
Well it is an issue on who you want incharge. For example If I am doing some web development I may want to virtualize Vista to insture the page renders correctly in IE 7. Then switch back to my Mac Enviroment. But there are other times say I want to play a windows game I would want Windows to have full control. So I want to run it nativly.
I think Microsoft wants to make sure you are not putting the same copy of windows on different virtual devices so you can have 10 Versions of windows from the same license. (ALthough it is on the same box)
If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?
For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?
What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:
Very confused about how this affects anyone?
Well it is an issue on who you want incharge. For example If I am doing some web development I may want to virtualize Vista to insture the page renders correctly in IE 7. Then switch back to my Mac Enviroment. But there are other times say I want to play a windows game I would want Windows to have full control. So I want to run it nativly.
I think Microsoft wants to make sure you are not putting the same copy of windows on different virtual devices so you can have 10 Versions of windows from the same license. (ALthough it is on the same box)
Plymouthbreezer
May 2, 12:01 AM
Americans have been waiting for this day for almost a decade; this is great news.
Warbrain
Apr 28, 03:58 PM
Highly doubt it. Might just be an issue that a few devices are having but not across the board.
appleguy123
Apr 28, 01:06 PM
What kind of story kills the main character a quarter of the way through???
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét