centauratlas
Mar 29, 11:51 AM
Since 1984:
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
Drag and drop to move a file.
I use both.... and all I can say is "CUT and paste". Windows has had it for years, OS X SL doesn't. Same with window snap.
I love OS X, but, like with a lot of Apple products, its the "little things" that matter...
Both are great operating systems, and I will continue to use both since I cannot run Visual Studio on Mac, or XCode on Windows... :)
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
Drag and drop to move a file.
I use both.... and all I can say is "CUT and paste". Windows has had it for years, OS X SL doesn't. Same with window snap.
I love OS X, but, like with a lot of Apple products, its the "little things" that matter...
Both are great operating systems, and I will continue to use both since I cannot run Visual Studio on Mac, or XCode on Windows... :)
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 10:16 AM
Bottom line: The USA is already becoming like a 3rd world nation and I predict its going to get worse from here on through.. until the American People wake up and do something about it. One thing I have noticed about Americans when I came to this country many years ago - they are NOT revolutionaries like those in Eastern Europe or Europe for that fact.. they will allow their government to please them in any way shape or form, even when their freedoms are taken away by the Patriot acts I and II, and very soon III.
Americans don't have it in their blood any more to fight for what they truly believe in, all they care about is letting themselves be sent like sheep to the government's slaughter house.
WAKE UP!
Americans don't have it in their blood any more to fight for what they truly believe in, all they care about is letting themselves be sent like sheep to the government's slaughter house.
WAKE UP!
Cinch
Oct 12, 03:44 PM
I admire your commitment to the evolutionary approach. I would just like to point out that evolution has also created the compassion (or at least social conscience) that inspires this sort of effort. Perhaps this compassion is a trait that increases the survivability of our species in a way too. (I'm not suggesting that all traits increase survivability, but evolution has been going for some time now, and compassion has been a human trait for some time as well, so perhaps the two are friends for some reason).
digressing to the point of no return..:D
Compassion I think is an emergent phenomenon and I think there is an simpler explanation to your "quest" or debate here. What about individual wanting to create a nurturing environment (society) and helping others in time of need is a result of this behavior. Consequently, we construct a positive nurturing environment that is the "best" environement to raise our children (offspring). I think the new field of evolutionary psychology provides a very useful tool of looking human behavior.
digressing to the point of no return..:D
Compassion I think is an emergent phenomenon and I think there is an simpler explanation to your "quest" or debate here. What about individual wanting to create a nurturing environment (society) and helping others in time of need is a result of this behavior. Consequently, we construct a positive nurturing environment that is the "best" environement to raise our children (offspring). I think the new field of evolutionary psychology provides a very useful tool of looking human behavior.
4God
Aug 28, 02:41 PM
Unfortunately, cats are known liars.
DOH!!!! 55999
DOH!!!! 55999
munkery
Apr 12, 07:15 PM
Can anybody running Leopard confirm what users/groups have write privileges to Safari, Mail, & etc.
Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
conradzoo
Sep 10, 04:47 PM
I am not worried at all. Yes the next event will be all about the Movie store and next gen iPod.
Some love it some not. For the lather ones, the one more thing, the MBP update, "by public demand".
Everybody is happy. Well almost.
Some love it some not. For the lather ones, the one more thing, the MBP update, "by public demand".
Everybody is happy. Well almost.
GFLPraxis
Jul 14, 07:25 PM
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
Is it more than a G5? I see someone posted PowerMac processor power consumption, but those were dual processors in a PowerMac. I want to see how much power the single G5 in an iMac consumed.
Is it more than a G5? I see someone posted PowerMac processor power consumption, but those were dual processors in a PowerMac. I want to see how much power the single G5 in an iMac consumed.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
Mundy
Sep 10, 04:54 PM
Whats wrong with having two dual core processors on one chip? I can understand that the FSB might become a bottleneck but thats not only a issue related to the number of cores/processors is it?
The problem is that a double-dual-core solution (like Intel's Kentsfield and Clovertown) still requires that two cores communicate with the other two cores over the FSB. A single, shared FSB is one of the reasons that Intel's first generation of dual-core CPUs could not compete with AMD's 64-bit X2 line.
Intel has its reasons for the way it's doing its first generation of quad-core CPUs, but performance is not one of them. Right now, the primary concern is silicon yields, and the double-dual-core method allows Intel to throw away a bad core without tossing the entire quad-core silicon wafer. A true quad-core CPU would not allow this�i.e. Intel couldn't "cut out" the bad silicon�and therefore the potential for monetary loss is greater.
The truth is that Kentsfield and Clovertown are trial runs. They are stopgap measures in the same way that Yonah was a stopgap on the way to Merom. Once Intel goes to true quad-core CPUs and a 45 nm process, it might be time to worry about the Mac Pro being obsolete. Until then, anything Intel releases will be incremental.
Just my 2 cents.
The problem is that a double-dual-core solution (like Intel's Kentsfield and Clovertown) still requires that two cores communicate with the other two cores over the FSB. A single, shared FSB is one of the reasons that Intel's first generation of dual-core CPUs could not compete with AMD's 64-bit X2 line.
Intel has its reasons for the way it's doing its first generation of quad-core CPUs, but performance is not one of them. Right now, the primary concern is silicon yields, and the double-dual-core method allows Intel to throw away a bad core without tossing the entire quad-core silicon wafer. A true quad-core CPU would not allow this�i.e. Intel couldn't "cut out" the bad silicon�and therefore the potential for monetary loss is greater.
The truth is that Kentsfield and Clovertown are trial runs. They are stopgap measures in the same way that Yonah was a stopgap on the way to Merom. Once Intel goes to true quad-core CPUs and a 45 nm process, it might be time to worry about the Mac Pro being obsolete. Until then, anything Intel releases will be incremental.
Just my 2 cents.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 19, 02:32 PM
couldn't apple develop something into itunes that lets you watch while it is downloading? is this possible?
You can watch while downloading.
I was able to begin about 5 minutes into download -- barely enough time to get the snacks.
You can watch while downloading.
I was able to begin about 5 minutes into download -- barely enough time to get the snacks.
MattInOz
Apr 14, 07:17 PM
Thunderbolt will never replace USB because they serve different functions. You will never see low-bandwidth devices such as keyboard/mice/USB stick using thunderbolt because it doesn't make sense.
Yes but why would these devices move to USB3 either?
Most are happy on USB1 or 2. with no demand for 3.
If they have the market for features then Wireless is the most attractive up sell for most of them over faster wires. So Low bandwidth devices are either going to stay USB 2 or go wireless.
Low bandwidth is really a moot point, it's high bandwidth that drives wired connections.
Yes but why would these devices move to USB3 either?
Most are happy on USB1 or 2. with no demand for 3.
If they have the market for features then Wireless is the most attractive up sell for most of them over faster wires. So Low bandwidth devices are either going to stay USB 2 or go wireless.
Low bandwidth is really a moot point, it's high bandwidth that drives wired connections.
Stella
Apr 19, 06:54 AM
What else would you expect to hear? No company would just bow down and give up....
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
Balooba
Nov 13, 07:07 PM
Rogue Amoeba, stop behaving like grumpy children. We love your apps and need updates and continued development! Change the graphics and get over it.
Apple, what are you thinking? It is not like RA were using an Apple logo for an app on the Palm Pre, they used iMac pictures as part of the UI in a clever way that made sense from a user's perspective. You cannot keep doing this to smart and Apple-loving companies that make wonderful apps clearly in the spirit of your policies. If your lawyers object, change your lawyers.
Apple, what are you thinking? It is not like RA were using an Apple logo for an app on the Palm Pre, they used iMac pictures as part of the UI in a clever way that made sense from a user's perspective. You cannot keep doing this to smart and Apple-loving companies that make wonderful apps clearly in the spirit of your policies. If your lawyers object, change your lawyers.
w00master
Nov 17, 04:23 PM
what? you expect consistency?
LOL.
LOL.
Stella
Apr 14, 12:23 PM
I shall try and find the link again.. obviously, with a USB3 -> TB adapter the IO speed will be decreased down to USB3 levels.
Personally, I see little point of USB3 -> TB connectivity since they'll probably be far more USB3 hard disks etc available ( and cheaper ) than TB - and there's no benefit at the end of the day to link USB3 to a TB device.
So where exactly did you find these?
Thunderbolt = 10 Gbps (right now, will scale even larger in the future)
USB 3.0 = 5 Gbps
There will never be a USB 3.0 to Thunderbolt adapter, there will be Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter.
Don't worry, with Thunderbolt you essentially get an endless amount of options of ports. FireWire, USB 1-3, eSata, etc. It's only a matter of time until these adapters enter the market.
Personally, I see little point of USB3 -> TB connectivity since they'll probably be far more USB3 hard disks etc available ( and cheaper ) than TB - and there's no benefit at the end of the day to link USB3 to a TB device.
So where exactly did you find these?
Thunderbolt = 10 Gbps (right now, will scale even larger in the future)
USB 3.0 = 5 Gbps
There will never be a USB 3.0 to Thunderbolt adapter, there will be Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter.
Don't worry, with Thunderbolt you essentially get an endless amount of options of ports. FireWire, USB 1-3, eSata, etc. It's only a matter of time until these adapters enter the market.
BornAgainMac
Sep 5, 01:20 PM
Do you know a Tivo is a computer? It has a microprocessor and runs Linux. However, they don't try to make it a computer. That is why their idea has caught on.
I agree. For the mainstream market.
I don't mind having the more complex Microsoft solution (I have EyeTV) but Microsoft Media Center PC doesn't let me use it's media interface to play my songs on iTunes or play my Quicktime movies. Also it couldn't work with my iPod. It seems to be only Microsoft only files. That was the deal killer for me. I didn't mind the overly complex remote or the Windows virus operating system.
I agree. For the mainstream market.
I don't mind having the more complex Microsoft solution (I have EyeTV) but Microsoft Media Center PC doesn't let me use it's media interface to play my songs on iTunes or play my Quicktime movies. Also it couldn't work with my iPod. It seems to be only Microsoft only files. That was the deal killer for me. I didn't mind the overly complex remote or the Windows virus operating system.
sishaw
Apr 19, 08:24 AM
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this is a smart move on Apple's part for that reason. Unless they've lined up another supplier that we don't know about.
Yeah, I'm wondering if this is a smart move on Apple's part for that reason. Unless they've lined up another supplier that we don't know about.
jaw04005
Nov 13, 09:58 PM
sad, as the app store is 99% junk.
You�re right there. And what�s sad is Apple is chasing off (in this case) one of its best developers. Rogue Amoeba makes great software, and comes highly recommended from many people in the Mac community � AirFoil, Audio Hijack Pro, Fission, etc.
You know what�s interesting is while browsing around with my iDisk app on the iPhone, I noticed the iDisk app displays Adobe�s Photoshop icon for PSD files. I wonder if Adobe gave Apple explicit permission to use their Photoshop file icon in the iDisk app?
You�re right there. And what�s sad is Apple is chasing off (in this case) one of its best developers. Rogue Amoeba makes great software, and comes highly recommended from many people in the Mac community � AirFoil, Audio Hijack Pro, Fission, etc.
You know what�s interesting is while browsing around with my iDisk app on the iPhone, I noticed the iDisk app displays Adobe�s Photoshop icon for PSD files. I wonder if Adobe gave Apple explicit permission to use their Photoshop file icon in the iDisk app?
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 13, 07:05 PM
MagnusVonMagnum -
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality.
95% of my music is from my massive CD collection and it has been ripped to Apple Lossless. Does Sonos sell lossless music? If not, WTF are you talking about? You're then comparing apples to oranges. You can just as easily make an Apple lossless library on iTunes as a Flac one for Sonos or XBMC or whatever the heck you prefer to use. One review of Sonos I read says it does not support WMA Lossless (which IS sold online via Music Giants) so that is moot as well.
As for the whole "AAC versus Lossless (of any kind)" thing, I will not even bother arguing about the sonic transparency of 256kbit VBR AAC (Lets just say I've never heard about anyone proving they could tell the difference in a double blind test. I'm well aware of "audiophile" tendencies as I used to be one until I realized 80% of it is snake-oil BS. I now buy what actually makes a difference (high quality speakers and room treatments) and I've never had anyone complain about either of my two systems). I did my own extensive testing between my lossless rips and 256 AAC and I could never tell the difference. For convenience sake, my own lossless library is archive only now. iTunes lets me handle mobile/home in a seamless manner by using only one library for both (something that would be useless with Sonos as it is clearly only home use. You can't play most lossless formats in the car whereas my old JVC and my new factory Subaru WRX player's USB ports handle AAC (as well as MP3 and WMA) just fine. There's nothing quite like taking up to 64GB of music on a USB stick with you on the road. It's like having a 1000 disc CD changer in the car.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality.
95% of my music is from my massive CD collection and it has been ripped to Apple Lossless. Does Sonos sell lossless music? If not, WTF are you talking about? You're then comparing apples to oranges. You can just as easily make an Apple lossless library on iTunes as a Flac one for Sonos or XBMC or whatever the heck you prefer to use. One review of Sonos I read says it does not support WMA Lossless (which IS sold online via Music Giants) so that is moot as well.
As for the whole "AAC versus Lossless (of any kind)" thing, I will not even bother arguing about the sonic transparency of 256kbit VBR AAC (Lets just say I've never heard about anyone proving they could tell the difference in a double blind test. I'm well aware of "audiophile" tendencies as I used to be one until I realized 80% of it is snake-oil BS. I now buy what actually makes a difference (high quality speakers and room treatments) and I've never had anyone complain about either of my two systems). I did my own extensive testing between my lossless rips and 256 AAC and I could never tell the difference. For convenience sake, my own lossless library is archive only now. iTunes lets me handle mobile/home in a seamless manner by using only one library for both (something that would be useless with Sonos as it is clearly only home use. You can't play most lossless formats in the car whereas my old JVC and my new factory Subaru WRX player's USB ports handle AAC (as well as MP3 and WMA) just fine. There's nothing quite like taking up to 64GB of music on a USB stick with you on the road. It's like having a 1000 disc CD changer in the car.
Cinch
Oct 12, 02:40 PM
It makes me so happy to know that there are still plenty of stupid people in the world.
Thank you
no need to respond to such obvious bait
;)
Cinch
Thank you
no need to respond to such obvious bait
;)
Cinch
AppliedVisual
Oct 27, 11:52 AM
I. Hate. Greenpeace. I've wasted seconds of my life 'listening' to them and its all rubbish.
http://www.apple.com/environment/
Exactly. Just a bunch of hippies with their own underlying political agendas. FWIW, Apple is no more or less green than any other PC company... Take that as you will, but considering the majority of their production/manufacturing operations are done in and by many of the same companies that PC makers such as HP, Dell, IBM, etc.. use, it's hard to point the finger at one company.
http://www.apple.com/environment/
Exactly. Just a bunch of hippies with their own underlying political agendas. FWIW, Apple is no more or less green than any other PC company... Take that as you will, but considering the majority of their production/manufacturing operations are done in and by many of the same companies that PC makers such as HP, Dell, IBM, etc.. use, it's hard to point the finger at one company.
AppleScruff1
Apr 29, 02:23 AM
- Windows Mobile was among the first platforms for smartphones and failed miserably.
- Global personal computer sales are slumping (-3% in Q1 2011) while Macs achieve a growth of 26%. There's clearly a loss of traction for Windows going on, despite all the praises for Windows 7.
Is the global sales growth drop due to Windows? How many percent gain of the overall OS market has Apple gained with the 26% increase in Mac sales?
- Global personal computer sales are slumping (-3% in Q1 2011) while Macs achieve a growth of 26%. There's clearly a loss of traction for Windows going on, despite all the praises for Windows 7.
Is the global sales growth drop due to Windows? How many percent gain of the overall OS market has Apple gained with the 26% increase in Mac sales?
farmboy
Dec 31, 11:58 AM
Hurf. There was a checkbox for installing a trial version. You didn't uncheck it.
Maybe this is why you're using OSX then. It makes choices for you. Not yours, but you know...
Just like the choice was made for you by Adobe to install completely unrelated software if the user doesn't happen to catch the checkbox. Yeah, that's so much better.
Maybe this is why you're using OSX then. It makes choices for you. Not yours, but you know...
Just like the choice was made for you by Adobe to install completely unrelated software if the user doesn't happen to catch the checkbox. Yeah, that's so much better.
andrew050703
Sep 21, 10:05 AM
sorry to interrupt on the network discussion, but has anyone got anything new to share/discuss on the iPhone (unless I read the thread wrong ;))?
Can it really offer all that functionality (from the patent report) in a candybar style phone, or will they have to release two - a funtional one, for ipodding/texting/phoning; and a pda for office work on the move (& everything else?
Can it really offer all that functionality (from the patent report) in a candybar style phone, or will they have to release two - a funtional one, for ipodding/texting/phoning; and a pda for office work on the move (& everything else?
