G5isAlive
Mar 18, 08:04 AM
You do realize the phone, aka the system, was designed to do this and that AT&T is going out of their way to charge people double for what they are paying for?
It would be no different if your home ISP tacked on a $20+ charge each month for having a router at home.
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong. The service that people have bought is not somehow giving them more bandwidth or a higher amount of download data simply because they are tethering through the phone. The phone can only download so fast to begin with so any device you connect to it will still be limited.
I am amazed people keep justifying their actions. Phone companies are like insurance companies, they balance service with costs to make profit. They tailor their plans to do so. Making profit is in the consumers best long term interest. Unprofitable companies go out of business.
They can calculate if they introduce certain plans just how much gets used and not used and base costs accordingly. When people break the contracts to do whatever they want, it eventually costs the rest of the consumers in increased rates. The reason there isn't unlimited data plans is some people would go out of their way to use as much bandwidth as possible just because they could. So AT&T had to put on limits. But they did so with a business model in hand.
It would be no different if your home ISP tacked on a $20+ charge each month for having a router at home.
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong. The service that people have bought is not somehow giving them more bandwidth or a higher amount of download data simply because they are tethering through the phone. The phone can only download so fast to begin with so any device you connect to it will still be limited.
I am amazed people keep justifying their actions. Phone companies are like insurance companies, they balance service with costs to make profit. They tailor their plans to do so. Making profit is in the consumers best long term interest. Unprofitable companies go out of business.
They can calculate if they introduce certain plans just how much gets used and not used and base costs accordingly. When people break the contracts to do whatever they want, it eventually costs the rest of the consumers in increased rates. The reason there isn't unlimited data plans is some people would go out of their way to use as much bandwidth as possible just because they could. So AT&T had to put on limits. But they did so with a business model in hand.
zap2
Apr 11, 10:51 AM
I'm getting the 2010 mac mini Monday (and switching to OSX) but kinda worried what my dad will say about me getting one... I guess he can't do anything about it since it's my money
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 11, 10:42 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:00 PM
According to the APA there is no sound science behind conversion therapy.
Some quotes from Nicolosi:
�If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he�ll be straight. Small price to pay.�
�When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.�
�I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.�
I wouldn't have made the first comment, and I think he shouldn't have made it.
Here's a video of an interview with Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who helped the APa normalize homosexuality before he discovered that some homosexuals could change their sexual orientation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo). I post the link to the video partly because I agree that James Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family, should have admitted that Spitzer thought very few homosexuals did that.
I agree with Nicolosi's second quoted comment, but I wonder I what kind of right he meant in video three, the one I asked you guys to watch part of before I wrote this post. During years of counseling, I've noticed that some therapists need to think more analytically than they do think. One counselor kept saying "selfish" when she meant "assertive" and told a group that suicide was one of the most selfish things anyone could do. At least I knew that she didn't mean that people were being assertive by killing themselves.
I don't know what to say about Nicolosi's third remark.
Some quotes from Nicolosi:
�If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he�ll be straight. Small price to pay.�
�When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.�
�I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.�
I wouldn't have made the first comment, and I think he shouldn't have made it.
Here's a video of an interview with Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who helped the APa normalize homosexuality before he discovered that some homosexuals could change their sexual orientation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo). I post the link to the video partly because I agree that James Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family, should have admitted that Spitzer thought very few homosexuals did that.
I agree with Nicolosi's second quoted comment, but I wonder I what kind of right he meant in video three, the one I asked you guys to watch part of before I wrote this post. During years of counseling, I've noticed that some therapists need to think more analytically than they do think. One counselor kept saying "selfish" when she meant "assertive" and told a group that suicide was one of the most selfish things anyone could do. At least I knew that she didn't mean that people were being assertive by killing themselves.
I don't know what to say about Nicolosi's third remark.
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 07:49 AM
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
These people are being sacrificed, as were the workers/fireman/army at Chernobyl.
If you knew the full extent, from the get go, would you have hung around to 'man the pumps'??
These people are being sacrificed, as were the workers/fireman/army at Chernobyl.
If you knew the full extent, from the get go, would you have hung around to 'man the pumps'??
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:30 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
nsayer
Apr 28, 08:22 AM
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
toxic
Apr 5, 10:44 PM
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.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
that's what the dock is for... you put your most common applications in the dock, everything else is in the Applications folder, accessible from the dock.
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
cmd + delete
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
cmd + up
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
all necessary files are contained in the application package, any files that go somewhere else are just saves or preferences. the exception is for certain programs, like Adobe ones, where the developer is too lazy to rewrite their code so that all the necessary components are in one place.
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.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
that's what the dock is for... you put your most common applications in the dock, everything else is in the Applications folder, accessible from the dock.
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
cmd + delete
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
cmd + up
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
all necessary files are contained in the application package, any files that go somewhere else are just saves or preferences. the exception is for certain programs, like Adobe ones, where the developer is too lazy to rewrite their code so that all the necessary components are in one place.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:27 AM
http://www.thg.ru/cpu/20051018/images/greencreek.gif
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
Octobot
Oct 30, 10:46 AM
If I was running upcomming Leopard OSX, a few osx apps, the full upcoming CS3 Suite (not necessarily Batch Processing), have After Effects rendering a 30 minute clip in the background, downloading *legal torrents, watching internet tv (muted), while burning a DVD and listening to music..
That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet
Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..
thx in advance,
L
That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet
Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..
thx in advance,
L
Consultant
Apr 20, 05:31 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
IgnatiusTheKing
Jul 7, 09:13 AM
I'm still on the iPhone 3G. I was seriously considering ditching AT&T and the iPhone 4 for Sprint/EVO 4G or Verizon/Droid X because I was dropping call every single call in my house (no joke, every single call) and multiple calls per day around town a few weeks ago, BUT...
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
javajedi
Oct 8, 05:51 PM
Mac are the fastest in things like MP3 encoding, MPEG4/DIVX encoding ...[/B][/QUOTE]
1) DiVX performance on the mac absolutely blows.
2) After I read your little post I ran a simple benchmark comparing my $3500 top of the line PowerBook:
The P4 ripped and encoded a 6:20 song @ 128kbit/s in a total of 12 seconds. The same process (same song) @ 128kbit/s in iTunes took 47 seconds.
What does that say?
1) DiVX performance on the mac absolutely blows.
2) After I read your little post I ran a simple benchmark comparing my $3500 top of the line PowerBook:
The P4 ripped and encoded a 6:20 song @ 128kbit/s in a total of 12 seconds. The same process (same song) @ 128kbit/s in iTunes took 47 seconds.
What does that say?
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:51 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.
Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.
Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:04 AM
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
"church" is more like wherever-the-Hell-you-want.
The governments job is enforcing the will of the people because it derives its power from consent of the govered
gauriemma
Sep 20, 01:48 PM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
Lau
Aug 29, 11:42 AM
...
Good post, AlBDamned. :)
Said a lot of things I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently. My brain is mush this afternoon. :p
Good post, AlBDamned. :)
Said a lot of things I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently. My brain is mush this afternoon. :p
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:22 PM
8-Core Mac Pro? Can't wait to upgrade. :cool:
ryme4reson
Oct 8, 05:59 PM
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Winni
Apr 21, 03:21 AM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
If they really cared that much about user experience, then iOS wouldn't be the Walled Garden that it is and iTunes wouldn't be such a royal pain in the neck to use.
Just an anecdote from my last week with an iPhone and a first generation Google G1 phone (which I have to use when I'm on 7/24-on call-duty): I moved to a new house where I do not yet have a DSL line and also no 3G/UMTS connectivity. Both the iPhone and the G1 use Deutsche Telekom, and while the iPhone always tells me that "it cannot activate the data network", the G1 manages to give me Internet access at the same location with the same carrier.
So in real world use, the iPhone lets me down while the Android phone does not.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
If they really cared that much about user experience, then iOS wouldn't be the Walled Garden that it is and iTunes wouldn't be such a royal pain in the neck to use.
Just an anecdote from my last week with an iPhone and a first generation Google G1 phone (which I have to use when I'm on 7/24-on call-duty): I moved to a new house where I do not yet have a DSL line and also no 3G/UMTS connectivity. Both the iPhone and the G1 use Deutsche Telekom, and while the iPhone always tells me that "it cannot activate the data network", the G1 manages to give me Internet access at the same location with the same carrier.
So in real world use, the iPhone lets me down while the Android phone does not.
babyj
Sep 21, 12:37 PM
Except the big difference between Microsoft's Media Center and Apple's, is that Microsoft's new Vista version will be able to record encrypted digital and HD television via a CableCARD, and Apple has no plans for that at the moment. And it's not the type of functionality that will just show up, Microsoft has been working on getting a CableCARD device certified for years.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
No comments:
Post a Comment