cav23j
Nov 30, 10:36 AM
im just staying away from this software now
andythursby
Apr 18, 04:41 PM
Oh come on, we aren't really going to resort to the "there's only one way to design a mobile device" argument, are we? You're telling me the only way to design the Galaxy Tab was to make it look identical to the iPhone 3GS?
My iPhone 4 doesn't look anything like my wife's iPhone 3GS, so apparently there are at least two ways to design a mobile phone.
None of the other Android phones or tablets I've seen look like iPhones either. Only Samsung's.
+1 for great common sense that some people are lacking on here so far...
My iPhone 4 doesn't look anything like my wife's iPhone 3GS, so apparently there are at least two ways to design a mobile phone.
None of the other Android phones or tablets I've seen look like iPhones either. Only Samsung's.
+1 for great common sense that some people are lacking on here so far...
![justin bieber pictures shirtless. Shirtless wow right :]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sM86uYz6pWzPoD_s-XTlPyPqkCDav64YPGheZoQ0UwEc7EbiHQiT2T_PPfppRvPYQq4ArUz_tVk71Unfq7n-qQHKQvwnPHce42bkf5RbreMUYADbBYDWol5AHiWBI-zxjiHM2hYmfT8yb0e9VWM0EcyVVH7N1x-8FX3W_aOUP3KrdnHYoIXZc=s0-d "Shirtless wow right :]")
j_maddison
Mar 30, 06:45 PM
This question is primarily because I have a Macbook Air.
If Apple are going to release this via the App Store (assuming the speculation is true), does this mean that you don't have to burn Lion to a disk to install it? Or would I have to transfer it to some sort of USB drive first?
I guess I'm asking if you can just double click it in your downloads folder and run the OS installation from there
If Apple are going to release this via the App Store (assuming the speculation is true), does this mean that you don't have to burn Lion to a disk to install it? Or would I have to transfer it to some sort of USB drive first?
I guess I'm asking if you can just double click it in your downloads folder and run the OS installation from there
Beezoo
May 7, 10:33 AM
I guess I am the only one that remembers that it started out as a free service. Before it was .Mac it was called iTools and it was free. It was a benefit of being a part of the Mac community. It certainly was much more basic back then, but I have been using it since. The remote wipe for iPhone and other added features keep it worth the family pac price for this household even if it doesn't go back to being a free service.
-aggie-
May 4, 07:50 PM
Anon proceed forthwith lest I transmute DP to a small rat.
generik
Sep 16, 08:14 AM
I am not that greedy, give me the same DL drives that have already been on PC laptops since 2 years ago and I will be happy :rolleyes:
jpcanaverde
Apr 5, 02:52 PM
Maybe now they realize that even companies like Toyota want some more ways to create stuff. Better?
And it isn't about the theme... It could be just a black screen with the text "Buy it." But it would be a jailbreak content made by a big company. It means something.
And it isn't about the theme... It could be just a black screen with the text "Buy it." But it would be a jailbreak content made by a big company. It means something.
Jape
Nov 4, 03:15 PM
I was doing some research on bottom line telecommunications and i came across these good reviews: :D
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller770-p1-s4-d1.html
when tstreete comes back and tells me how it works, I will probably order it from this company.
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller770-p1-s4-d1.html
when tstreete comes back and tells me how it works, I will probably order it from this company.
-aggie-
May 3, 02:29 PM
I suppose we'll know who the villain is?
Cougarcat
May 4, 07:33 PM
I wonder if it somehow partitions the hard drive to make a small partition with a bootable installer on, and then installs Lion onto the larger, primary partition?
Well, it does make the Recovery partition, where you can access disk utility. You can use that to do a clean install? I'd like to know more about how it works.
What was hard about previous installations ? Pop CD in, run upgrade. Same process.
Speed. (Of course, you do have to download it first.) ;) But you don't have to wait for the disk to arrive.
Well, it does make the Recovery partition, where you can access disk utility. You can use that to do a clean install? I'd like to know more about how it works.
What was hard about previous installations ? Pop CD in, run upgrade. Same process.
Speed. (Of course, you do have to download it first.) ;) But you don't have to wait for the disk to arrive.
Butthead
Sep 16, 01:05 PM
2.16 and 2.33 Merom options
Magnetic latch
MacBook style keyboard
New video card (Nvidia?)
160GB hard drive option
IMO, these are the least that Apple can do to keep up with other high performance notebooks in the market. I think new MBP's will arrive one the same day as Photokina although they may not be highlighted at the event.
Dreaming really (note 1920 res. hack for PB thread here has over 100k views, Apple get a clue!), but hopefully the delay has more to do with better upgrades, vid chip (Nvidia GeForce Go 7900 GTX, 512 MB please), a true HD screen (WQUXGA (http://www.videotechnology.com/0904/formats.html) would be even nicer, 4k res, yeah baby, just the ticket for Leopard and the 17in model), etc. ; than limited supply of Merom's...why put them in the iMac 1st when the profit margin is higher on the MBP's- which are in more need of an early upgrade than the iMac?
Dell already has these features in one of it's expensive laptops (though almost twice as thick, which makes it much easier to implement):
http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/08/28/see_eurocom_emperor_fly_with_nvidia_sli/page2.html
Magnetic latch
MacBook style keyboard
New video card (Nvidia?)
160GB hard drive option
IMO, these are the least that Apple can do to keep up with other high performance notebooks in the market. I think new MBP's will arrive one the same day as Photokina although they may not be highlighted at the event.
Dreaming really (note 1920 res. hack for PB thread here has over 100k views, Apple get a clue!), but hopefully the delay has more to do with better upgrades, vid chip (Nvidia GeForce Go 7900 GTX, 512 MB please), a true HD screen (WQUXGA (http://www.videotechnology.com/0904/formats.html) would be even nicer, 4k res, yeah baby, just the ticket for Leopard and the 17in model), etc. ; than limited supply of Merom's...why put them in the iMac 1st when the profit margin is higher on the MBP's- which are in more need of an early upgrade than the iMac?
Dell already has these features in one of it's expensive laptops (though almost twice as thick, which makes it much easier to implement):
http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/08/28/see_eurocom_emperor_fly_with_nvidia_sli/page2.html
rjohnstone
Apr 18, 03:21 PM
There wasn't a phone that looked or worked like the iPhone until the iPhone. Now how many clones are there?
There wasn't a Tablet that looked or worked like the iPad until the iPad. Now how many clones are there?
Apple is absolutely justified in going after them for copying their UI and design as far as I can see. I'm shocked that it's taken this long.
There was at least one phone that "looked" like an iPhone before anyone new what the iPhone looked like.
Does the Prada ring a bell? Probably not to most of you, but it was first to market with that basic "look".
As for the UI, old WinMo phones had grids of icons on the desktop, so again, not a unique "look".
Next one will be arguing about the spacing or the number of icons per row. Nit picking I say.
The iPad is not "innovative" in it's looks or design either. It's minimalism at it's best. So simplistic that it will be tough to defend in court. It is a logical basic design for a tablet.
As for how it functions, it's technically the iPhone with a larger screen. So the argument of functionality fails as many devices functioned similarly prior to the release of the iPad. Screen size is irrelevant.
Now I do believe with the icons Samsung chose to use combined with the layout, one could logically argue that Samsung was copying the overall UI from iOS. I believe that is where Apple's case is with the phones.
Easy for Samsung to remedy. Ditch the TouchWiz UI... it sucks anyway.
Still failing to see the argument on the Galaxy tabs though... Honeycomb looks nothing like iOS ad Samsung hasn't uglied them up with the old TouchWiz UI overlay.
There wasn't a Tablet that looked or worked like the iPad until the iPad. Now how many clones are there?
Apple is absolutely justified in going after them for copying their UI and design as far as I can see. I'm shocked that it's taken this long.
There was at least one phone that "looked" like an iPhone before anyone new what the iPhone looked like.
Does the Prada ring a bell? Probably not to most of you, but it was first to market with that basic "look".
As for the UI, old WinMo phones had grids of icons on the desktop, so again, not a unique "look".
Next one will be arguing about the spacing or the number of icons per row. Nit picking I say.
The iPad is not "innovative" in it's looks or design either. It's minimalism at it's best. So simplistic that it will be tough to defend in court. It is a logical basic design for a tablet.
As for how it functions, it's technically the iPhone with a larger screen. So the argument of functionality fails as many devices functioned similarly prior to the release of the iPad. Screen size is irrelevant.
Now I do believe with the icons Samsung chose to use combined with the layout, one could logically argue that Samsung was copying the overall UI from iOS. I believe that is where Apple's case is with the phones.
Easy for Samsung to remedy. Ditch the TouchWiz UI... it sucks anyway.
Still failing to see the argument on the Galaxy tabs though... Honeycomb looks nothing like iOS ad Samsung hasn't uglied them up with the old TouchWiz UI overlay.
corywoolf
Mar 29, 03:00 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
It aint hardcore, unless it's hexacore, mega-giga-byte son
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
It aint hardcore, unless it's hexacore, mega-giga-byte son
marksman
Apr 18, 04:18 PM
I think they are all adults, and they keep these things very separate. If someone said to their colleagues in another department "don't buy screens from Samsung, we are involved in a lawsuit" or "don't sell screens to Apple, we are involved in a lawsuit", the answer would be "are you mad? They are our best supplier, I don't care about any lawsuit" or "are you mad? They are our best customer, I don't care about any lawsuit".
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 10, 10:35 AM
hence the ambiguity, IMO, of the presentation of the equation.
Stridder44
Apr 21, 03:57 PM
Awesome. Just awesome. :D Can't wait to see what these things look like.
silentnite
Apr 24, 11:14 AM
This is good news with the new imacs on the way this should tie everything together nicely.
timmillwood
Nov 26, 10:56 AM
So this will be a super remote for the iTV?
i think i will get one if they are reasonably prices but i would not pay more than �500 for it when I have a Macbook Pro
Would be nice if it has built in HSDPA, EDGE and GSM!
i think i will get one if they are reasonably prices but i would not pay more than �500 for it when I have a Macbook Pro
Would be nice if it has built in HSDPA, EDGE and GSM!
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 02:03 PM
However, ati does list the 6990 as having a maximum display resolution of 2650 x 1600 per display though it can handle up to 6 displays. There will have to be a change somewhere. (Though you could probably write a program that would allow this resolution). That is still going to max out thunderbolt so you would not be able to drive one of those displays at native with a macbook pro.
Pretty sure again that the limitation is purely a "spec sheet" limitation given that is the max current LCDs do. My GF's miniDVI Macbook has a maximum "spec sheet" resolution of 1920x1200 yet she's plugged into a Dell SP2343W with a native resolution 2048x1156 with no problem. That resolution doesn't even show up on the "spec sheet" but it works fine in practice.
If the hardware really can't push more than 2560x1600 per connection, than since it can handle up to 6 displays of that resolution, I'm pretty sure it's just a firmware update away from enabling higher resolutions over DP 1.2. Again, maybe just something AMD overlooked because of the lack of such displays on the market.
Time will tell, but all the components available today can do it. We're at the point where we are ready to break beyond the 2560x1600 wall for a single monitor.
Now Thunderbolt is indeed a wild card here. Why would Apple limit DP like that though ? I'm betting that in DP mode, if they do implement DP 1.2, you would be able to use the full 21.6 Mbps. Otherwise, it makes no sense...
Pretty sure again that the limitation is purely a "spec sheet" limitation given that is the max current LCDs do. My GF's miniDVI Macbook has a maximum "spec sheet" resolution of 1920x1200 yet she's plugged into a Dell SP2343W with a native resolution 2048x1156 with no problem. That resolution doesn't even show up on the "spec sheet" but it works fine in practice.
If the hardware really can't push more than 2560x1600 per connection, than since it can handle up to 6 displays of that resolution, I'm pretty sure it's just a firmware update away from enabling higher resolutions over DP 1.2. Again, maybe just something AMD overlooked because of the lack of such displays on the market.
Time will tell, but all the components available today can do it. We're at the point where we are ready to break beyond the 2560x1600 wall for a single monitor.
Now Thunderbolt is indeed a wild card here. Why would Apple limit DP like that though ? I'm betting that in DP mode, if they do implement DP 1.2, you would be able to use the full 21.6 Mbps. Otherwise, it makes no sense...
Tilpots
Apr 9, 08:09 PM
It's 2. Deal 288 people.
appleguy123
May 7, 05:54 PM
Nail on the head right there. From a business standpoint that makes tremendous sense. Apple would likely pull in much more revenue from advertisers placing content on a regular basis than they would from a limited subscription base. Make the service free, more people use it, apple brings in more $ from iAd services.
Remember This (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/apple-exploring-ad-supported-operating-systems/)?
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/10/22/032247-ads_500.png
Remember This (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/apple-exploring-ad-supported-operating-systems/)?
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/10/22/032247-ads_500.png
gnasher729
Apr 7, 11:55 AM
And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
Reach9
Apr 20, 01:53 AM
I'm on the 3GS > iPhone 5 > iPhone 7 upgrade sequence. I'm glad to be on it. I don't like to be a Beta tester. If there is an unseen design flaw (antennagate), it will give Apple a full year to "hopefully" fix the issue. I plan on using this phone without a case, so I don't want any antenna issues. I'm doubtful the iPhone 5 will have a better antenna. The Verizon iPhone has the same issues as the ATT iPhone. If Apple was going to fix it, they would have fixed it then....
No Apple had to give Verizon customers the same iPhone 4, but the antenna was tweaked for the CDMA. Apple can't just give Verizon users iPhone 4.2 (working antenna).
I think a better antenna will be at the top of Apple's list for the iPhone 5. Also, i completely agree with you, the 3GS > iPhone 5 > iPhone 7 sequence is the best, and i've stuck on with my iPhone 3G so i could upgrade to the iPhone 5 and get into it.
Here's hoping for a bigger screen, 3.7"?
No Apple had to give Verizon customers the same iPhone 4, but the antenna was tweaked for the CDMA. Apple can't just give Verizon users iPhone 4.2 (working antenna).
I think a better antenna will be at the top of Apple's list for the iPhone 5. Also, i completely agree with you, the 3GS > iPhone 5 > iPhone 7 sequence is the best, and i've stuck on with my iPhone 3G so i could upgrade to the iPhone 5 and get into it.
Here's hoping for a bigger screen, 3.7"?
AppleIntelRock
Sep 16, 03:14 PM
some days i feel like a dell owner :(
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar