Tobsterius
Apr 13, 07:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
The concerns expressed here have been echoed by many who have attended the Supermeet.
FCP needed an overhaul and it got it. No complaints there.
The concerns expressed here have been echoed by many who have attended the Supermeet.
FCP needed an overhaul and it got it. No complaints there.
dukebound85
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 06:56 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
leekohler
Mar 28, 04:18 AM
I want to be accepted as I am. But my heterosexuality is not who I am. It's not my identity. It's a property I have. If I became gay, the homosexuality wouldn't change me into someone else. I wouldn't become, say, Jussi Bjorling, my favorite singer. But if I did become gay, I would have a property I never had before.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
On this very weird note, I'm going to bed. I've been up too late, but I played hockey earlier tonight and have a difficult time sleeping after, the brain just does not want to shut down, and I'm off all this week getting rid of carryover vacation.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
On this very weird note, I'm going to bed. I've been up too late, but I played hockey earlier tonight and have a difficult time sleeping after, the brain just does not want to shut down, and I'm off all this week getting rid of carryover vacation.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:57 PM
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
Digitalclips
Apr 28, 08:32 AM
Now re tabulate by profitability.
manman
Mar 18, 11:57 AM
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
I don't think it's really like this in practice, because 99% of the time people are probably using one device or the other, they aren't surfing around and watching videos etc on the iPad and iPhone at the same time for example. They COULD do it, so I guess the analogy works, I just don't think there's a lot to worry about there.
I agree that if this is explicitly laid out in the contract we signed, we can't really get mad. I do think it's retarded though- with normal Internet service, you pay a single fee and connect any device you want... computers, phones, game consoles... buying service from a phone carrier should ve the same. Because in most cases it really DOES amount to paying for the same data twice. You'd have to have multiple people using each device simultaneously to really get your moneys worth : /
I don't think it's really like this in practice, because 99% of the time people are probably using one device or the other, they aren't surfing around and watching videos etc on the iPad and iPhone at the same time for example. They COULD do it, so I guess the analogy works, I just don't think there's a lot to worry about there.
I agree that if this is explicitly laid out in the contract we signed, we can't really get mad. I do think it's retarded though- with normal Internet service, you pay a single fee and connect any device you want... computers, phones, game consoles... buying service from a phone carrier should ve the same. Because in most cases it really DOES amount to paying for the same data twice. You'd have to have multiple people using each device simultaneously to really get your moneys worth : /
notjustjay
Apr 6, 11:58 AM
forgot to add that the "+" (maximize) button is wildly inconsistent in its function.
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
That's because Apple didn't decide what the maximize button was supposed to do. That was supposed to be up to each application developer.
Don't think of it as a "maximize" button, think of it as "optimize". As in "Hey, application, the user just clicked your green button. Go ahead and resize yourself to whatever you think is most appropriate given what document is currently open." Most apps should resize their window to display the full width without needing scrollbars. In theory.
I agree with the person a few posts up who said "Don't think about how you did it in Windows. Think about what you think would make sense" and it usually works.
As for the other little quibbles discussed in this thread: yes, OS X is a little different (most of these issues are with Finder versus Explorer, I notice). You just get used to it. I use XP at work and OSX at home every day, and I learn to work with each. I do some of the tricks mentioned in this thread (like adding a shortcut to my Applications folder on the dock to mimic a Start menu) but not so much because "I prefer the Windows way" as "this is efficient and makes sense".
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
That's because Apple didn't decide what the maximize button was supposed to do. That was supposed to be up to each application developer.
Don't think of it as a "maximize" button, think of it as "optimize". As in "Hey, application, the user just clicked your green button. Go ahead and resize yourself to whatever you think is most appropriate given what document is currently open." Most apps should resize their window to display the full width without needing scrollbars. In theory.
I agree with the person a few posts up who said "Don't think about how you did it in Windows. Think about what you think would make sense" and it usually works.
As for the other little quibbles discussed in this thread: yes, OS X is a little different (most of these issues are with Finder versus Explorer, I notice). You just get used to it. I use XP at work and OSX at home every day, and I learn to work with each. I do some of the tricks mentioned in this thread (like adding a shortcut to my Applications folder on the dock to mimic a Start menu) but not so much because "I prefer the Windows way" as "this is efficient and makes sense".
Multimedia
Oct 6, 10:02 AM
What I really would like to know is when the eight-core Mac will be available.
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.
We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge. :p
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.
We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge. :p
CaoCao
Mar 25, 03:20 PM
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
MacCoaster
Oct 11, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
I don't know. I'll run it on an UltraSPARC II sometime when I can. My step-dad's box isn't loaded up yet.
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Really? Code bug? How? It's a simple C/C#/Java/obj-C program. The G4 shouldn't be so slow with a task oh so simple. It's also no bug that Altivec doesn't include hardware double precision floating point. But then again, we weren't testing them with hardware support--just testing the pure CPU power. In fact, if you don't believe us--please, we beg you, look at the source code. Nothing Altivec/SSE/SSE2/3DNow/any of that crap there. 10-20 times slower isn't science fiction when it comes to double precision floating point on the G4. It simply blows.
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
I don't know. I'll run it on an UltraSPARC II sometime when I can. My step-dad's box isn't loaded up yet.
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Really? Code bug? How? It's a simple C/C#/Java/obj-C program. The G4 shouldn't be so slow with a task oh so simple. It's also no bug that Altivec doesn't include hardware double precision floating point. But then again, we weren't testing them with hardware support--just testing the pure CPU power. In fact, if you don't believe us--please, we beg you, look at the source code. Nothing Altivec/SSE/SSE2/3DNow/any of that crap there. 10-20 times slower isn't science fiction when it comes to double precision floating point on the G4. It simply blows.
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:42 PM
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:52 AM
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
TuckBodi
Sep 12, 01:11 AM
I have not read the whole thread here but I must say coming from an iPhone 3g to the iPhone 4 is a night and day difference. I love my iPhone 4. I think since I have had it I have had about 5 total dropped calls. I have had it since late July. I had that many dropped calls in a day with my 3g. I just had to add this in cause I see people complain about the same thing all the time. Dropped call this and dropped call that. Frankly I don't see it. Maybe I just have the super iPhone. LOL! Just my .02 worth!
-Dave
Yeah, I gotta sorta agree. You know my iPhone has gotten about 100% better in the past month or so. Instead of 0-1 bars I now get 1-2 bars (except the times I really have an important call and then of course it drops). But drop calls are now only about 2 a day, instead of 3 or 4, so that's nice. Oh yeah, thinking about it, my voice mail is better too....instead of getting it the next day it's now about 12 hours, so that's cool. And my text messages go through most of the time now..whereas I used to have about every fourth one fail, so yeah gotta like that! And retrieving my mail is better as I only get that "can't connect to server" message only 3 times a day now instead of 6 or 7. You know..overall, I they're getting closer to when I first bought the phone several years ago. Wait a second..nope..they gotta ways to go. Just sayin'.
-Dave
Yeah, I gotta sorta agree. You know my iPhone has gotten about 100% better in the past month or so. Instead of 0-1 bars I now get 1-2 bars (except the times I really have an important call and then of course it drops). But drop calls are now only about 2 a day, instead of 3 or 4, so that's nice. Oh yeah, thinking about it, my voice mail is better too....instead of getting it the next day it's now about 12 hours, so that's cool. And my text messages go through most of the time now..whereas I used to have about every fourth one fail, so yeah gotta like that! And retrieving my mail is better as I only get that "can't connect to server" message only 3 times a day now instead of 6 or 7. You know..overall, I they're getting closer to when I first bought the phone several years ago. Wait a second..nope..they gotta ways to go. Just sayin'.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:14 PM
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 04:59 AM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Love those misconceptions. Good going. Right one for you.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Love those misconceptions. Good going. Right one for you.
auero
Mar 18, 07:59 AM
I don't understand the ranting of why AT&T charges more to tether. Sprint and Verizon do it too? Just because your jailbreak method doesn't work anymore shouldn't make you mad. The system caught up to you. Yes it's stupid to pay for extra data but that's just how it is and people are still going to pay for it so complaining won't do anything.
I'm glad those people who are abusing the service and using 6+ gb of data so they can tether are finally getting the boot. It bogs down the network. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited in the fine print either. It's the same on every network so don't blame AT&T.
I'm glad those people who are abusing the service and using 6+ gb of data so they can tether are finally getting the boot. It bogs down the network. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited in the fine print either. It's the same on every network so don't blame AT&T.
paeza
Oct 26, 01:33 AM
Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess
gorgeousninja
Apr 9, 06:36 AM
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
actually the post was funny and to the point, your coming across as arrogant and ill informed.
actually the post was funny and to the point, your coming across as arrogant and ill informed.
Evangelion
Apr 15, 10:54 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
I was a fat kid at school, and received my share of bullying. Nothing extraordinary, though.
So, what's the difference between fat kids and gay kids. Well, there's nothing you can do about being gay. Obesity is something you can deal with. Eat less crap, excersize more. There are some medical conditions that cause obesity, but usually it's self-caused.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
bullying is never ok. But it's even worse when you are bullied because of something you have no say over.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
I was a fat kid at school, and received my share of bullying. Nothing extraordinary, though.
So, what's the difference between fat kids and gay kids. Well, there's nothing you can do about being gay. Obesity is something you can deal with. Eat less crap, excersize more. There are some medical conditions that cause obesity, but usually it's self-caused.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
bullying is never ok. But it's even worse when you are bullied because of something you have no say over.
bigcat318
May 2, 08:52 AM
I have noticed pop-ups about this appearing recently. It's usually the type where your only option is to click OK on a small window and then it opens a full window about 'MACDefender' and tries to get you to download it.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:27 AM
Not what he said, but how he said it. But you already knew what I meant.
People tossing out random verses from the Pentateuch/Torah to defend or condemn religion is problematic and is above most people's pay grades. There are plenty of rabbis and other scholarly folks who can help people understand some of these harsh and difficult passages. Of course, it's easier and way more fun to remain ignorant of these books to play "gotcha!" with other people's religious beliefs.
The modern view of homosexual sex in all the orthodox Christian religions is so tame and simple it's almost boring. It's just premarital sex, which is considered sinful. It's not morally worse than heterosexual premarital sex. And yes, marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman in these religions, so yes, that does really suck for the orthodox gay Christian.
People tossing out random verses from the Pentateuch/Torah to defend or condemn religion is problematic and is above most people's pay grades. There are plenty of rabbis and other scholarly folks who can help people understand some of these harsh and difficult passages. Of course, it's easier and way more fun to remain ignorant of these books to play "gotcha!" with other people's religious beliefs.
The modern view of homosexual sex in all the orthodox Christian religions is so tame and simple it's almost boring. It's just premarital sex, which is considered sinful. It's not morally worse than heterosexual premarital sex. And yes, marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman in these religions, so yes, that does really suck for the orthodox gay Christian.
PDubNYC
Sep 20, 10:05 AM
actually... he doesn't indicate a HD... why? well the iTV (sorry, not really impressed with this name) streams media from your mac/pc trough wifi or ethernet... so if you buy an episode on iTunes... it will be stored in your iTunes library on the content-hosting mac/pc in your house and thus be available for iTV to play on your TV...
since it has a USB port I guess it will be possible to attach a USB HD... and store files locally instead of on a remote mac/pc...
From the linked article:
"He said: "It can also stream it live through the box to the TV or it has a small hard drive on it so they can download what you put on the device on your computer, on your iTunes, through the television set."
Sounds to me like he is very much indeed indicating that it has a hard drive. And iTV is a temporary name. Damn, you've got all of those computers, yet you are still so misinformed.
since it has a USB port I guess it will be possible to attach a USB HD... and store files locally instead of on a remote mac/pc...
From the linked article:
"He said: "It can also stream it live through the box to the TV or it has a small hard drive on it so they can download what you put on the device on your computer, on your iTunes, through the television set."
Sounds to me like he is very much indeed indicating that it has a hard drive. And iTV is a temporary name. Damn, you've got all of those computers, yet you are still so misinformed.
Azathoth
May 2, 01:23 PM
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
Right. Not.
In OS X is also pops up when doing things like opening files (html documents), DMG images etc. Of course this is correct behaviour, but OS X and Win7 are *fairly* similar in terms of user prompts.
Right. Not.
In OS X is also pops up when doing things like opening files (html documents), DMG images etc. Of course this is correct behaviour, but OS X and Win7 are *fairly* similar in terms of user prompts.
