TiAdiMundo
Aug 7, 05:10 PM
From Vista Help:
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
For me the Leopard preview was a big disappointment. No innovative features but silly Vista bashing all the time. Come on, Apple!
What about flash drives? Meta data organisation in Finder? Media streams over local networks? Better window management? Spaces is the next answere to the incomplete Dockbar-conception (Expos� was the first and Time Maschine is a next interface ornateness).
Preview and network-wide search in Spotlight? Who is copying here?
I can't believe that: but now Vista looks innovativ!
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
For me the Leopard preview was a big disappointment. No innovative features but silly Vista bashing all the time. Come on, Apple!
What about flash drives? Meta data organisation in Finder? Media streams over local networks? Better window management? Spaces is the next answere to the incomplete Dockbar-conception (Expos� was the first and Time Maschine is a next interface ornateness).
Preview and network-wide search in Spotlight? Who is copying here?
I can't believe that: but now Vista looks innovativ!
dempson
Mar 26, 03:23 PM
NB: For those English native speakers... which is the best subject when addressing a company, for instance, Apple/Microsoft...? I used "it" here, but sometimes I also use "they"... and I don't know which one is correct!
Both are acceptable. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, the convention seems to be to refer to a company in the plural, i.e. "they". In the US, the convention seems to be to refer to a company in the singular, i.e. "it". To me (in New Zealand), "they" seems more natural because most companies involve multiple people.
Both are acceptable. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, the convention seems to be to refer to a company in the plural, i.e. "they". In the US, the convention seems to be to refer to a company in the singular, i.e. "it". To me (in New Zealand), "they" seems more natural because most companies involve multiple people.
guzhogi
Jul 20, 10:07 AM
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
rovex
Mar 22, 02:46 PM
Dude go back to school. And pay particular attention to learn about diagonal lengths and surface areas of rectangles.
I wasn't thinking straight, big deal.
And Thankfully I'm more successful in life than you'll ever be. Thanks.
I wasn't thinking straight, big deal.
And Thankfully I'm more successful in life than you'll ever be. Thanks.
benthewraith
Nov 28, 07:42 PM
Many years ago a media levy was passed in the United States that applies a "tax" to "consumer digital audio" media (CD-R blanks, DAT, etc.) with the proceeds going to music industry/artists. The justification was to offset losses due to illegal copying of music in digital form (generational loseless copies). This to date hasn't been expanded to include devices like the iPod (at least I don't recall that taking place).
Which makes no sense. If they get compensated by blank CD/DVD sales to offset the money loss from pirating, then why the hell are they suing consumers for P2P?
Actually, I suspected Universal was going to do the same with the iPod, regardless of whether the Zune debuted or not. They obviously can manipulate Microsoft, they'll try and do the same with Apple.
And lets not forget, these are the same people who wish they could sue people for ripping their cds (and burning them again so as to do away with all the DRM **** they put on them).
As to why their music sales have been dropping, if half the songs on the market weren't about pimps and beating hos', probably a lot more people would buy it.
Which makes no sense. If they get compensated by blank CD/DVD sales to offset the money loss from pirating, then why the hell are they suing consumers for P2P?
Actually, I suspected Universal was going to do the same with the iPod, regardless of whether the Zune debuted or not. They obviously can manipulate Microsoft, they'll try and do the same with Apple.
And lets not forget, these are the same people who wish they could sue people for ripping their cds (and burning them again so as to do away with all the DRM **** they put on them).
As to why their music sales have been dropping, if half the songs on the market weren't about pimps and beating hos', probably a lot more people would buy it.
manu chao
Aug 27, 05:31 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
CaptMurdock
Mar 22, 07:02 AM
Fox News, huh?
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
Ries
Apr 27, 09:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
It wouldn't hurt to actually read the article. I know this wouldn't allow you to write the gibberish that is your paranoia, so I can see why you wouldn't. They say very clearly that they will be releasing an update to the particular problem of location services. Also, the phone isn't logging your location if it is logging cell towers and some wifi hotspots. It's logging those locations.
And how close do you have to be before a wifi is logged? they reach what, 10-100meters? Take the log and triangulate the cell towers, since your properly most at work or at home, those two places will stand out in the data.
It wouldn't hurt to actually read the article. I know this wouldn't allow you to write the gibberish that is your paranoia, so I can see why you wouldn't. They say very clearly that they will be releasing an update to the particular problem of location services. Also, the phone isn't logging your location if it is logging cell towers and some wifi hotspots. It's logging those locations.
And how close do you have to be before a wifi is logged? they reach what, 10-100meters? Take the log and triangulate the cell towers, since your properly most at work or at home, those two places will stand out in the data.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:15 PM
There is a huge difference between an OS and a cellphone standard. Having two cellphone standards is like having two internets. You as a customer have no idea weather you use CDMA or GSM. I dont know about you, but I use my cell for talking end send/receive data. I dont give a rats ass whether this done through code division or time division...
Yes, but I do notice that my data transfers are about 5x faster on my EVDO phone than on my EDGE phone and I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
Yes, but I do notice that my data transfers are about 5x faster on my EVDO phone than on my EDGE phone and I don't get nearly as many dropped calls when switching between towers like I did when I used T-Mobile and Cingular.
Silentwave
Jul 15, 05:55 PM
Too many people are complaining about rumored information that isn't even reliable, and most likely incorrect.
I agree with you whole-heartedly!
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
You hit the nail right on the head with the processor availability. Core Duo uses the pentium M architecture and was only in two versions: mobile, codename Yonah with its variants, and a pair of low speed ultra low power server chips- Sossaman- only going up to 2GHz with 2MB L2 and 667 FSB. the other Xeons (Paxville/Dempsey) and high end chips like the Pentium D/Pentium Extreme Edition ( Smithfield/Presler) are all using NetBurst architecutre, which is obsolete and very inefficient plus they are extremely power hungry and hot.The top Pentium Extreme Edition Presler dual core at 3.73GHz was easily outperformed by several of the Conroe cores- I recall one test where it was neck and neck with the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo.
They wanted the fastest chips possible using the best architecture possible- that is Woodcrest and Conroe with the Core microarchitecture.
I have little doubt that the 3GHz Xeon 5160 will be in the Mac Pros, if not standard, then as a BTO option.
I agree with you whole-heartedly!
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
You hit the nail right on the head with the processor availability. Core Duo uses the pentium M architecture and was only in two versions: mobile, codename Yonah with its variants, and a pair of low speed ultra low power server chips- Sossaman- only going up to 2GHz with 2MB L2 and 667 FSB. the other Xeons (Paxville/Dempsey) and high end chips like the Pentium D/Pentium Extreme Edition ( Smithfield/Presler) are all using NetBurst architecutre, which is obsolete and very inefficient plus they are extremely power hungry and hot.The top Pentium Extreme Edition Presler dual core at 3.73GHz was easily outperformed by several of the Conroe cores- I recall one test where it was neck and neck with the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo.
They wanted the fastest chips possible using the best architecture possible- that is Woodcrest and Conroe with the Core microarchitecture.
I have little doubt that the 3GHz Xeon 5160 will be in the Mac Pros, if not standard, then as a BTO option.
kdarling
Apr 20, 11:08 AM
Okay, Knight, you're right. Even the Verizon Galaxy S has more buttons and a patterned back, with a rectangular lens and flash area. Not to mention a WVGA AMOLED screen.
But it does have a chrome trim ring and the back is curved for comfort!
Yeah, Apple is reaching a bit here.
But it does have a chrome trim ring and the back is curved for comfort!
Yeah, Apple is reaching a bit here.
ThunderSkunk
Apr 6, 04:03 PM
I guess I see it like this:
We use two models of Motion tablets in our studios, the LE1700 running Win7 and the newer J running XP Tablet, for maximum horsepower. Both allow our designers to create complex CAD programs with huge 3d files and multipart assemblies parametric to external data sources, and do it in the field. These tablets have wacom pressure sensitive digitizers, highly visible outdoor displays, 3hr battery lives, weigh 4-5lbs, and cost 3-4 thousand dollars.
We use iPads for everything else mobile, because they're fast, and light, and we're used to carrying around yellow pads everywhere we go anyway. No more yellow pads. Eventually, when more people start to realize that the platform is a good one for more than just content consumption, we'll get more and bigger functionality in better and better applications.
The xoom has neither the functionality of windows nor that of iOS. The day Androids marketplace starts catching up with iOS, we'll reconsider.
But throwing in slightly bigger megapixel cameras and SD card readers really doesn't enter into it.
We use two models of Motion tablets in our studios, the LE1700 running Win7 and the newer J running XP Tablet, for maximum horsepower. Both allow our designers to create complex CAD programs with huge 3d files and multipart assemblies parametric to external data sources, and do it in the field. These tablets have wacom pressure sensitive digitizers, highly visible outdoor displays, 3hr battery lives, weigh 4-5lbs, and cost 3-4 thousand dollars.
We use iPads for everything else mobile, because they're fast, and light, and we're used to carrying around yellow pads everywhere we go anyway. No more yellow pads. Eventually, when more people start to realize that the platform is a good one for more than just content consumption, we'll get more and bigger functionality in better and better applications.
The xoom has neither the functionality of windows nor that of iOS. The day Androids marketplace starts catching up with iOS, we'll reconsider.
But throwing in slightly bigger megapixel cameras and SD card readers really doesn't enter into it.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 26, 03:58 PM
PowerBook G5 next tuesday?
Mildly funny when it first started, but my god is that an old joke.
In other news, Merom this, Merom that, just make sure you get it out on time Apple :p
Mildly funny when it first started, but my god is that an old joke.
In other news, Merom this, Merom that, just make sure you get it out on time Apple :p
�algiris
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
Ditto. Gruber is as much a blow hard as anyone can possibly be. He's such an arrogant, self-absorbing prick of a human being, without an un-biased bone in his body. He is the epitome of Apple fanboy.
He's self-loving jerk everyone knows that, but what's even worse that he's more often right than wrong. That makes fandroids go mental.
He's self-loving jerk everyone knows that, but what's even worse that he's more often right than wrong. That makes fandroids go mental.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
�algiris
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Why did it take so long for Apple to release a statement?
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
MacRumors
Apr 25, 01:32 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/federal-lawsuit-filed-over-apples-location-tracking-in-ios/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/143129-iphone_4_maps_compass.jpg
In what shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, Bloomberg briefly reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-25/apple-sued-over-user-location-data-storage-on-iphones-ipads.html) that a lawsuit has been filed in U.S. federal court targeting Apple over privacy concerns (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/20/researchers-disclose-iphone-and-ipad-location-tracking-privacy-issues/) related to location information being stored on iOS devices and in backups for those devices. The lawsuit is almost certainly the first of many regarding this issue.Apple Inc. (AAPL) was sued for alleged privacy invasion and computer fraud by two customers who claim the company is secretly recording and storing the location and movement of iPhone and iPad users, according to a federal complaint filed today in Tampa, Florida.As we noted earlier today (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/steve-jobs-on-ios-location-issue-we-dont-track-anyone/), Apple CEO Steve Jobs has reportedly replied to a customer email denying that Apple is tracking its customers and labeling the claims being widely discussed as "false".
Article Link: Federal Lawsuit Filed Over Apple's Location Tracking in iOS (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/federal-lawsuit-filed-over-apples-location-tracking-in-ios/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/143129-iphone_4_maps_compass.jpg
In what shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, Bloomberg briefly reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-25/apple-sued-over-user-location-data-storage-on-iphones-ipads.html) that a lawsuit has been filed in U.S. federal court targeting Apple over privacy concerns (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/20/researchers-disclose-iphone-and-ipad-location-tracking-privacy-issues/) related to location information being stored on iOS devices and in backups for those devices. The lawsuit is almost certainly the first of many regarding this issue.Apple Inc. (AAPL) was sued for alleged privacy invasion and computer fraud by two customers who claim the company is secretly recording and storing the location and movement of iPhone and iPad users, according to a federal complaint filed today in Tampa, Florida.As we noted earlier today (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/steve-jobs-on-ios-location-issue-we-dont-track-anyone/), Apple CEO Steve Jobs has reportedly replied to a customer email denying that Apple is tracking its customers and labeling the claims being widely discussed as "false".
Article Link: Federal Lawsuit Filed Over Apple's Location Tracking in iOS (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/federal-lawsuit-filed-over-apples-location-tracking-in-ios/)
Neb154
Aug 7, 03:39 PM
I'm real excited for the new iChat and Spaces, along with these new "top secret features..." They better be good!
The finder is definately my bet for something to be revamped, along with probably iLife which will be revamped for leopard.
Edit : Also something more with virtualization (boot camp area) as they did not touch that really.
The finder is definately my bet for something to be revamped, along with probably iLife which will be revamped for leopard.
Edit : Also something more with virtualization (boot camp area) as they did not touch that really.
ehoui
Apr 19, 03:58 PM
So True...
Poor lost souls rely on Steve to think for them, bring them courage, and guide them in worship.
Anyone who fails to fall in line, is immediately a threat to them.
It's this weakness is laughable.
I don't know what's worse:
1) Poor lost Stevie souls who "fall into line" with everything Apple does; or,
2) Poor lost anti-Stevie souls who "fail to see any good" that Apple does
This is a debate about a topic which few of us are technically qualified to argue. That being said, ad hominem attacks should have no place here regardless of the bucket that one might fall into (1), (2) or other. So I respectfully ask you to knock it off. Thanks.
Poor lost souls rely on Steve to think for them, bring them courage, and guide them in worship.
Anyone who fails to fall in line, is immediately a threat to them.
It's this weakness is laughable.
I don't know what's worse:
1) Poor lost Stevie souls who "fall into line" with everything Apple does; or,
2) Poor lost anti-Stevie souls who "fail to see any good" that Apple does
This is a debate about a topic which few of us are technically qualified to argue. That being said, ad hominem attacks should have no place here regardless of the bucket that one might fall into (1), (2) or other. So I respectfully ask you to knock it off. Thanks.
blackburn
Mar 26, 06:10 AM
You know the best version of Windows 7 costs nearly 10x the price of the best version of OS X. ~$300 compared to $29. Thats a big difference.
Yeah but an 800 eur notebook that kicks macbook pros costing 1500eur in the but (only performance wise). Anyway it's cheaper to get a new pc than buying windows.
Yeah but an 800 eur notebook that kicks macbook pros costing 1500eur in the but (only performance wise). Anyway it's cheaper to get a new pc than buying windows.
Nuck81
Nov 12, 02:36 PM
Gah!!
I have it preordered and will be at my moms when it is going to be delivered!!
I have it preordered and will be at my moms when it is going to be delivered!!
kcmac
Mar 26, 12:07 PM
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Lion offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
The people that read sites such as macrumors is minuscule in comparison to the number of apple users out there. There will be nothing slow about the adoption of Lion. Just as all of the versions before it. In fact, I am betting on a faster than normal adoption.
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
The people that read sites such as macrumors is minuscule in comparison to the number of apple users out there. There will be nothing slow about the adoption of Lion. Just as all of the versions before it. In fact, I am betting on a faster than normal adoption.
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
john123
Sep 19, 09:32 AM
That whole comment had the tone of a spoilt 13 year old...
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
I don't know how many times we have to go round and round with this here. I've been on MacRumors since '01 and it's always the same-old, same-old. It's not legitimate. It's "I-wantism." You have no basis to believe that a Rev B would be more "stabled and refined." That's a hope, backed by nothing -- and nothing Apple ever comments on, either. The bottom line is that you can hope if you want, and you can wait if you want, but to bash Apple for being slow on the trigger, and to make the argument that Meroms are amazing and Yonahs are crap is, frankly, horse manure. Like I said, 64 bit is pretty irrelevant for most users, and the speed and battery differences are quite negligible. And the argument that Apple is losing tons of sales to PC manufactuers is, frankly, laughable too.
JAT
Apr 19, 11:54 PM
For that matter, people say that Apple ripped off their bookshelf from Delicious Library. Which itself took it from who knows where.
Mediaman (http://www.imediaman.com/) for Windows, perhaps. The companies appear to have started within a couple months of each other, one writing on Mac, one on Win. Interestingly, neither has appeared to try going to the other OS with their virtually identical products. Suspicious?
I always wondered which actually came first.
Mediaman (http://www.imediaman.com/) for Windows, perhaps. The companies appear to have started within a couple months of each other, one writing on Mac, one on Win. Interestingly, neither has appeared to try going to the other OS with their virtually identical products. Suspicious?
I always wondered which actually came first.