appleguy123
Apr 27, 04:54 PM
Very odd not to vote for the next highest vote getter to save yourself. Even if he is a fellow wolf.
In this game there is a kamikaze and a infectious wolf. Strategy plays a part when they can control who gets lynched.
In this game there is a kamikaze and a infectious wolf. Strategy plays a part when they can control who gets lynched.
digitalbiker
Jul 11, 12:58 AM
Apple never intended for iWork to compete with MS Office. Apple merely wanted to fill a niche for those AppleWorks users who didn't need a full blown behemoth Office Suite like MS Office.
It is only the die-hard Apple users that detest MS Office who are suggesting that iWork is a replacement for MS Office.
I have been using Pages and Keynote since Day One. Pages One was almost worthless in my book. Apple should have given away Pages v2 to those who suffered through version 1. Keynote was interesting and useful from version one but still lags significantly behind PowerPoint.
Both Pages 2 and Keynote now make a nice little package at $79.00 for those users who don't need to work in an MS Office environment and don't need all of the revision, collaboration, and integration tools of MS Office.
But come on, let's get real. iWork doesn't really come close to what is offered by a professional business suite like MS Office. It's like saying, Photshop Elements is a replacement for Creative Suite 2.:eek:
It is only the die-hard Apple users that detest MS Office who are suggesting that iWork is a replacement for MS Office.
I have been using Pages and Keynote since Day One. Pages One was almost worthless in my book. Apple should have given away Pages v2 to those who suffered through version 1. Keynote was interesting and useful from version one but still lags significantly behind PowerPoint.
Both Pages 2 and Keynote now make a nice little package at $79.00 for those users who don't need to work in an MS Office environment and don't need all of the revision, collaboration, and integration tools of MS Office.
But come on, let's get real. iWork doesn't really come close to what is offered by a professional business suite like MS Office. It's like saying, Photshop Elements is a replacement for Creative Suite 2.:eek:
lbro
Apr 18, 01:28 AM
Okay I'll play.
dXTC
Feb 25, 11:32 AM
They show will be on as long as the ratings are up. Maybe Sheen gets killed off when he crashes his car next season and then their long lost brother enters.
That'll be a jump-the-shark moment for sure.
And the train wreck continues....
http://blogs.forbes.com/dorothypomerantz/2011/02/25/two-and-a-half-men-canceled-after-charlie-sheens-latest-rants/
Holy crap. I do believe we're witnessing the next Mel Gibson, people.
That'll be a jump-the-shark moment for sure.
And the train wreck continues....
http://blogs.forbes.com/dorothypomerantz/2011/02/25/two-and-a-half-men-canceled-after-charlie-sheens-latest-rants/
Holy crap. I do believe we're witnessing the next Mel Gibson, people.
more...
yOyOYoo
Jan 26, 03:17 AM
you guys think Apple stock has dropped? Take a look at Google.... WOW.
FloatingBones
Nov 17, 03:42 PM
Hey Apple - ya think your user base might be interested in Flash??
The response means that users are interested in viewing videos -- even if those views are encapsulated in a legacy wrapper of Flash. Once content providers have updated their videos, there will be no need for this bridge.
In case you missed the news, there was yet another zero day bug in Adobe Flash (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). Read that transcript: the bug affects Windows, Mac, Solaris, Linux, and Android (!) devices. Adobe still thinks that quarterly updates of their software are good enough, and the next one isn't scheduled until February of 2011. As Steve Gibson notes in the podcast:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?"
Apple was not willing to bind the safety and performance of their browser to Adobe Flash. Good choice!
Yeah, you know what's best for us users though - so we should be elated that you are resisting support for it tooth and nail.
Apple approved the app. They are allowing individuals in the marketplace to decide what's best for them.
Hopefully, the websites that provide their videos through a legacy Flash wrapper will soon be providing their users with a choice.
I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.
The response means that users are interested in viewing videos -- even if those views are encapsulated in a legacy wrapper of Flash. Once content providers have updated their videos, there will be no need for this bridge.
In case you missed the news, there was yet another zero day bug in Adobe Flash (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). Read that transcript: the bug affects Windows, Mac, Solaris, Linux, and Android (!) devices. Adobe still thinks that quarterly updates of their software are good enough, and the next one isn't scheduled until February of 2011. As Steve Gibson notes in the podcast:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?"
Apple was not willing to bind the safety and performance of their browser to Adobe Flash. Good choice!
Yeah, you know what's best for us users though - so we should be elated that you are resisting support for it tooth and nail.
Apple approved the app. They are allowing individuals in the marketplace to decide what's best for them.
Hopefully, the websites that provide their videos through a legacy Flash wrapper will soon be providing their users with a choice.
I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.
more...
dXTC
Jan 2, 10:47 AM
Whether she eats 300 or 300,000 calories will have no affect on that. Current food production is more than enough to meet world needs, but for numerous reasons, produced food is often used for applications other than human consumption.
Emphasis mine. Let's put corn ethanol for vehicle fuel and soy biodiesel aside for a minute. You may be shocked when you find out how much corn and other food is given to livestock to bulk them up for human consumption as meat. It's quite possibly the most inefficient calorie conversion we humans can conjure-- just because we like meat too g**d*** much.
Vegan: The New Ethics Of Eating by Erik Marcus opened my eyes quite a bit about this kind of thing.
(Disclaimer: For a period of time, I was vegan because of what I read in that book and other resources. Nowadays I'm "flexitarian", eating meat for only about 10% of my intake, mainly in the interest of family harmony; I could "go veg" again rather easily.)
Emphasis mine. Let's put corn ethanol for vehicle fuel and soy biodiesel aside for a minute. You may be shocked when you find out how much corn and other food is given to livestock to bulk them up for human consumption as meat. It's quite possibly the most inefficient calorie conversion we humans can conjure-- just because we like meat too g**d*** much.
Vegan: The New Ethics Of Eating by Erik Marcus opened my eyes quite a bit about this kind of thing.
(Disclaimer: For a period of time, I was vegan because of what I read in that book and other resources. Nowadays I'm "flexitarian", eating meat for only about 10% of my intake, mainly in the interest of family harmony; I could "go veg" again rather easily.)
SiCbe
Oct 23, 08:08 AM
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:
well I would want to install Vista in bootcamp to play games... and the same one under parallels to be able to do simple tasks in windows without having to reboot OSX... :-) until parallels comes up with that 3d enabled version we'll have to install it twice ;-)
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:
well I would want to install Vista in bootcamp to play games... and the same one under parallels to be able to do simple tasks in windows without having to reboot OSX... :-) until parallels comes up with that 3d enabled version we'll have to install it twice ;-)
more...
iphone3gs16gb
May 1, 10:34 PM
I thank our special forces for killing and capturing that arab scumbag.
The U.S. carried out its promise :)
Now I wonder who is next?
The President is addressing the American people!
The U.S. carried out its promise :)
Now I wonder who is next?
The President is addressing the American people!
Andrew K.
Apr 14, 09:24 PM
My mouth.
Nice.
Nice.
more...
shecky
Oct 24, 07:56 AM
one thing i am very pleased about is that the stock 17" has all the specs i need (i will get more RAM elsewhere, not from apple, and not yet) 2GB RAM, 160GB HD, 2.33 C2D so now i do not have to CTO from apple, i can just go buy it in store.
the only things i wish for more of would be a higher-end video card and easy access HD bay. other than that i am pleased.
the only things i wish for more of would be a higher-end video card and easy access HD bay. other than that i am pleased.
marksman
Apr 14, 02:57 PM
While I would never buy an "iTV" it does sound somewhat interesting sorta like how the Apple TV sounded interesting at first.
I could see an iTV that essentially is a big giant wireless monitor for Macs/iDevices. It could have cameras on it so that you could use Facetime or whatever it's called with others. Maybe cheaper TV shows and stuff off the iTunes store.
While we may all doubt it at first like so many did when the iPad first came out, I wouldn't be surprised if something like this becomes a monster hit.
Don't say iTV. You know how many brits twisted their knickers when it was rumored Apple was going to rename Apple TV iTV?
"OMG THAT IS THE BLOODY NAME OF MY FAVOURITE TV NETWORK"
I could see an iTV that essentially is a big giant wireless monitor for Macs/iDevices. It could have cameras on it so that you could use Facetime or whatever it's called with others. Maybe cheaper TV shows and stuff off the iTunes store.
While we may all doubt it at first like so many did when the iPad first came out, I wouldn't be surprised if something like this becomes a monster hit.
Don't say iTV. You know how many brits twisted their knickers when it was rumored Apple was going to rename Apple TV iTV?
"OMG THAT IS THE BLOODY NAME OF MY FAVOURITE TV NETWORK"
more...
prostuff1
Oct 23, 09:31 AM
Boot Camp is not virtualization, by any definition. (And no, there's no way Microsoft or anyone else could argue that it is.)
I know that Bootcamp is not virtualization. What i am saying is that to run the OS in Bootcamp and a copy in parallels (legally) you would need to by the business or premium edition (or whatever they are called).
I know that Bootcamp is not virtualization. What i am saying is that to run the OS in Bootcamp and a copy in parallels (legally) you would need to by the business or premium edition (or whatever they are called).
toddybody
Apr 13, 08:52 PM
I agree with all the folks here who say it wont sell. I mean, since everyone I know is constantly reading and posting on MR... :p
more...
TrollToddington
Apr 21, 01:49 PM
I mean, if you want to differentiate your higher end products from the lower end ones, you ADD features to the higher end one. You DON'T remove features that were once standard for years on the lower end machine.
I've seen this in Yamaha keyboards - once upon a time all keyboards had MIDI IN/OUT/THROU, later (ca 2004 onwards) Yamaha removed this pretty basic feature from their low and mid-end keyboards so that they could not be used as controllers. The customers had to end up buying pretty expensive equipment in order to use MIDI connections.
I've seen this in Yamaha keyboards - once upon a time all keyboards had MIDI IN/OUT/THROU, later (ca 2004 onwards) Yamaha removed this pretty basic feature from their low and mid-end keyboards so that they could not be used as controllers. The customers had to end up buying pretty expensive equipment in order to use MIDI connections.
imwoblin
Apr 13, 02:33 PM
I can see it now..... people camping out overnight and long lines of knuckleheads with their Radio Flyer wagons waiting to purchase the Apple mandated 2 max!
more...
Nielsenius
Apr 16, 10:20 AM
Indeed.
My only issue with Lion DP2 and the subsequent update is the animations (I sound like a broken record between this and iOS 4.3).
Everything else is relatively solid thus far.
I agree completely. Launchpad folder animations look like crap right now. Safari previous/next animations are also a bit buggy for me. I assume that these issues will be fixed fairly soon, though.
My only issue with Lion DP2 and the subsequent update is the animations (I sound like a broken record between this and iOS 4.3).
Everything else is relatively solid thus far.
I agree completely. Launchpad folder animations look like crap right now. Safari previous/next animations are also a bit buggy for me. I assume that these issues will be fixed fairly soon, though.
doobs22
Apr 25, 10:58 AM
I am sure any plans to launch it have been scrapped and this is just a left over prototype. You know Apple has a history of planning for every contingency, I am sure there are Sprint iPhones ready to go also. If Apple decides to release them they would be ready to go.
I very much hope Apple will have a Sprint phone -- I'll buy one that works on Sprint.
I very much hope Apple will have a Sprint phone -- I'll buy one that works on Sprint.
wordoflife
May 1, 11:05 PM
Dollar rises upon death of Osama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110502/ts_alt_afp/usattacksobamabinladenforex_20110502035027)
Interesting, haha
Interesting, haha
daneoni
May 1, 10:52 PM
Am i the only who cannot access ANY video of the speech?
Snowy_River
Jul 12, 07:40 PM
I'm at a loss trying to figure out how this thread got a bit crazy...
The actual program used in Snowy's case matters little in getting it ready for the printer. You give the printer the file to print, and he/she will print it for you. Doesn't matter if it's a pdf from Word, a pdf from Pages, a doc from Word, an Indesign file, or a Quark Express file. If they can open the file, they can print it.
Again, most copy shops have elaborate folding, binding, stapling, and saddle stitching services that don't require the customer to figure out how to non-sequentually order pages. A skilled copy machine operator should be able to set up the job in less than 10 minutes.
You know, I'm with you. If we don't stop this bickering the thread is likely to get closed. I always find it irritating when that happens. So, I suggest we drop the "professional" vs. "consumer" argument. It's clear that we have different opinions, and neither of us seems to be being swayed by the other's arguments. So, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
Now, just so I don't get accused of trying to get the last word in before saying that we should drop it, I'll invite those on the other side of the argument to have one last quip, which I won't respond to. Then we can drop it. Sound fair?
The actual program used in Snowy's case matters little in getting it ready for the printer. You give the printer the file to print, and he/she will print it for you. Doesn't matter if it's a pdf from Word, a pdf from Pages, a doc from Word, an Indesign file, or a Quark Express file. If they can open the file, they can print it.
Again, most copy shops have elaborate folding, binding, stapling, and saddle stitching services that don't require the customer to figure out how to non-sequentually order pages. A skilled copy machine operator should be able to set up the job in less than 10 minutes.
You know, I'm with you. If we don't stop this bickering the thread is likely to get closed. I always find it irritating when that happens. So, I suggest we drop the "professional" vs. "consumer" argument. It's clear that we have different opinions, and neither of us seems to be being swayed by the other's arguments. So, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
Now, just so I don't get accused of trying to get the last word in before saying that we should drop it, I'll invite those on the other side of the argument to have one last quip, which I won't respond to. Then we can drop it. Sound fair?
FloatingBones
Nov 20, 01:03 AM
I don't need to do squat guy.
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
And this is number four. If those words were true, you would be able to explain why my four huge concerns for running Flash in iOS Safari are not valid. But you can't do that!
If the flash experience is so great, please tell us what exact Flash sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute on your iOS device?
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
And this is number four. If those words were true, you would be able to explain why my four huge concerns for running Flash in iOS Safari are not valid. But you can't do that!
If the flash experience is so great, please tell us what exact Flash sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute on your iOS device?
Plutonius
Apr 25, 09:38 PM
Nies. I don't have a comparison, but he's acting like he did when he was a werewolf.
It's not much to go on, but he gave someone a temporary majority in the most nonchalant manner I can think of. It's just a pet theory, but it's the best I got for now.
I'm switching to Nies. It's better then a random vote for "Don't Panic".
It's not much to go on, but he gave someone a temporary majority in the most nonchalant manner I can think of. It's just a pet theory, but it's the best I got for now.
I'm switching to Nies. It's better then a random vote for "Don't Panic".
Beaverman3001
Apr 21, 01:34 PM
I don't know, it's been on all aluminum models since 2003. After all these years Apple decided no one really wanted it? (A lot of people on these forums obviously wouldn't agree with that).
To save battery life? You can turn it off if you want. Problem solved.
The other models most obviously have more room for it. The Macbook Air doesn't, and Apple probably decided it wasn't worth bothering with for this model. For the other models with a lot more space, no reason not to if the space is there. But once you run into space constraints it is pretty easy to peg as one of the first things to be cut out.
To save battery life? You can turn it off if you want. Problem solved.
The other models most obviously have more room for it. The Macbook Air doesn't, and Apple probably decided it wasn't worth bothering with for this model. For the other models with a lot more space, no reason not to if the space is there. But once you run into space constraints it is pretty easy to peg as one of the first things to be cut out.
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар