ender land
Apr 10, 01:33 PM
Yes it is, and continually showing me that the right answer is 2 in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
kaneda
Aug 7, 09:07 PM
I want a new look....but nice specs...
Multimedia
Aug 7, 07:22 PM
In the past, Apple has always issued a "White Paper" on new leading products. I can't see the link for that yet. Anyone find it? :confused:
kalsta
May 3, 10:54 PM
Can you cite reliable figures for the cost advantage versus the cost to switch?
Nope. Ask me what the cost advantage of wearing my Adidas runners over a pair of wooden clogs is when I go out. I couldn't tell you. But I can appreciate the obvious benefits of the metric system in theory and in practice without making it all about short-term financial gain, and I think you could too if you took the time to look at it objectively. I am just thankful my country made the difficult decision back in the 70s when my biggest challenge was learning to wee in the potty.
As another commenter said, you owe your kids better.
Nope. Ask me what the cost advantage of wearing my Adidas runners over a pair of wooden clogs is when I go out. I couldn't tell you. But I can appreciate the obvious benefits of the metric system in theory and in practice without making it all about short-term financial gain, and I think you could too if you took the time to look at it objectively. I am just thankful my country made the difficult decision back in the 70s when my biggest challenge was learning to wee in the potty.
As another commenter said, you owe your kids better.
Erasmus
Aug 4, 09:20 PM
It seems to me that the future of running Windows on our Macs is to not run Windows on our Macs.
There are now at least two programs that allow a user to run Windows software without having to fork out the cost of the Windows OS, having to install it, or having to use or even look at it.
After the issues of differences in speed between Windows OS and Mac OS, being some programs, especially games, run better in Windows using Boot Camp, there will be no point in using Parallels or Boot Camp, and Apple will hopefully create their own version of Crossover, etc. This would only happen if Apple were to gain a significant marketshare, and were willing to take on Microsoft, who would probably find any and all loopholes and reasons to sue Apple through the ground, out the other side, and half way across the known universe. After all, who would use Windows if you could run all your programs on superior hardware, in a superior operating system?
I remain hopeful that this will one day happen, especially if Apple could create a way of running Direct X in System, or make their own graphics drivers that are equal to or better than DX10.
First we had to reboot. Then we only needed Windows. Now we don't. All we need now, is for Apple to royally screw Microsoft, and take over as the leading provider of operating systems. The time has come for a long and bloody revolution! Viva La Applé! Judgement Day on Microsoft is nigh!
Crusade anyone? Free Torches and Pitchforks. The cost of all projectile weaponry must be supported by the wielder, and I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
;)
There are now at least two programs that allow a user to run Windows software without having to fork out the cost of the Windows OS, having to install it, or having to use or even look at it.
After the issues of differences in speed between Windows OS and Mac OS, being some programs, especially games, run better in Windows using Boot Camp, there will be no point in using Parallels or Boot Camp, and Apple will hopefully create their own version of Crossover, etc. This would only happen if Apple were to gain a significant marketshare, and were willing to take on Microsoft, who would probably find any and all loopholes and reasons to sue Apple through the ground, out the other side, and half way across the known universe. After all, who would use Windows if you could run all your programs on superior hardware, in a superior operating system?
I remain hopeful that this will one day happen, especially if Apple could create a way of running Direct X in System, or make their own graphics drivers that are equal to or better than DX10.
First we had to reboot. Then we only needed Windows. Now we don't. All we need now, is for Apple to royally screw Microsoft, and take over as the leading provider of operating systems. The time has come for a long and bloody revolution! Viva La Applé! Judgement Day on Microsoft is nigh!
Crusade anyone? Free Torches and Pitchforks. The cost of all projectile weaponry must be supported by the wielder, and I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
;)
anonalidall
May 7, 11:44 AM
Point taken but what kind of FOOL am I to trade my privacy to Google for a paltry $6 at any level?
Where you go, who you speak to and how you communicate is of tremendous value and I recommend that people think about actual value. We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements.
Google and Facebook have both come out with disturbing revelations about how they feel about consumer privacy. I think the beauty of the web is that no company is irreplaceable. I could continue to get email, online calendar, pictures, documents and more without Google and that's a great feeling.
First, it's the very nature of capitalism that provides you with the ability to pick and choose the best service/company that meets your needs.
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements." If you mean that we should get free Cloud services without ads then I think you're completely wrong and I'm most worried about sites that provide free services and have absolutely nothing but VC cash to pay for it. And if you mean we should have the option of paying for Cloud services to avoid ads, then fine, but you can do that with Gmail, so I don't see why you think MobileMe is any better than Gmail (from the privacy perspective).
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Where you go, who you speak to and how you communicate is of tremendous value and I recommend that people think about actual value. We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements.
Google and Facebook have both come out with disturbing revelations about how they feel about consumer privacy. I think the beauty of the web is that no company is irreplaceable. I could continue to get email, online calendar, pictures, documents and more without Google and that's a great feeling.
First, it's the very nature of capitalism that provides you with the ability to pick and choose the best service/company that meets your needs.
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements." If you mean that we should get free Cloud services without ads then I think you're completely wrong and I'm most worried about sites that provide free services and have absolutely nothing but VC cash to pay for it. And if you mean we should have the option of paying for Cloud services to avoid ads, then fine, but you can do that with Gmail, so I don't see why you think MobileMe is any better than Gmail (from the privacy perspective).
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
geese
Nov 22, 04:27 AM
[QUOTE=Macrumors;3080145"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.'' .[/QUOTE]
I remember the head of Atari saying something similar about Sony's Playstation.
I remember the head of Atari saying something similar about Sony's Playstation.
smulji
Mar 30, 10:58 PM
Very true but those Macs are portables, not iMacs and certainly not the overpriced and overpowered Xeon server driven Mac Pro's that replaced the affordable and (at the time) upgradeable G4's and G5's we all used for our work. What happened to the dedicated 20/23/30" LCD CCFL Apple Cinema Display line, or even the Apple Studio Display line before them? Replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD based off the 27" iMac (basically an iMac without a computer). Times change, I get it, but why do they have to leave us power users who supported them before the iPod and need Apple systems for work behind? It's costing us thousands to switch to Windows systems and applications such as Avid and Premiere Pro/Adobe Suites.
IDevices are amazing, but please, don't make the already dwindling prosumers systems become iOS systems for the average Joe. There are a lot of people on here that are new comers from Apple's iPod/iPhone influx that don't know/understand what this is doing to those who really need OS X and affordable mid-towers and top notch displays again� and once built in California, now "designed" in California. Man, sad times for us and the states on that change...
pretty much the vast majority of electronic products are designed in the westernized world and manufactured in some third world country. Fortunate or unfortunate that's the reality.
IDevices are amazing, but please, don't make the already dwindling prosumers systems become iOS systems for the average Joe. There are a lot of people on here that are new comers from Apple's iPod/iPhone influx that don't know/understand what this is doing to those who really need OS X and affordable mid-towers and top notch displays again� and once built in California, now "designed" in California. Man, sad times for us and the states on that change...
pretty much the vast majority of electronic products are designed in the westernized world and manufactured in some third world country. Fortunate or unfortunate that's the reality.
adbe
Apr 5, 02:40 PM
While I agree in a sense, it's commonly known that there's no way to plug every hole, so you're scooping out water from a sinking ship with a cup. Every iOS device has been jailbroken since release, many several times using several exploits. There will never be a day when a software company will be smarter than the hacking community... software companies can't afford to buy them all :-)
The hacking community isn't any smarter than the people at Apple. The tools used by the jailbreak community, and by Charlie Miller are standard tools that Apple developers have access to as well. For some reason Apple don't seem to be making great use of those tools.
MS started running fuzzing tools and auditing for buffer overflows aggressively around the time of XP SP2. It's taken some years but the payoff has been huge and obvious.
Apple need to up their game. iOS and OSX are seriously in need of major security improvements. If/when Apple quit treating security as MSs problem, jail breaking will become extremely hard. That's a good thing.
Now, will the jail break community just bugger off to Android? Most likely. Are there enough of them that Apple will care? I couldn't say. If there are, then maybe that'll be a useful lesson for Apple, and a bit more effort will be put into allowing users to tweak their phone natively.
The hacking community isn't any smarter than the people at Apple. The tools used by the jailbreak community, and by Charlie Miller are standard tools that Apple developers have access to as well. For some reason Apple don't seem to be making great use of those tools.
MS started running fuzzing tools and auditing for buffer overflows aggressively around the time of XP SP2. It's taken some years but the payoff has been huge and obvious.
Apple need to up their game. iOS and OSX are seriously in need of major security improvements. If/when Apple quit treating security as MSs problem, jail breaking will become extremely hard. That's a good thing.
Now, will the jail break community just bugger off to Android? Most likely. Are there enough of them that Apple will care? I couldn't say. If there are, then maybe that'll be a useful lesson for Apple, and a bit more effort will be put into allowing users to tweak their phone natively.
Clive At Five
Nov 22, 12:31 PM
Okay, I've heard here a lot, that people want simple integration/syncronization with iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, & Address Book. These are all, (minus iTunes) 100% Mac-Centric. PC users would only get integration/syncronization with iTunes. What good is that to them? At that point you only have iPod + Phone.
So Apple has a choice: Mac-Centric or not.
Knowing Apple, their first choice is "not" (which doesn't mean it will start out that way, but we'll just have to wait to find out). Apple would then have to either write iCal et al. for Windows or build in support for Outlook, ...uh... photo viewer... whatever PCs use for photos.
Both are daunting tasks.
Conclusion: In order for Apple to make a phone as good and as universal as the iPod, it will have to accomplish one of the aforementioned daunting tasks.
Making a phone for Mac users would be a walk in the park, because 1) it's such a small microcosm, 2) It's an environment that they are familiar with.
Making a phone for everyone will not be as easy. HOWEVER, Apple is great at building OSes (the iPod OS is simple & intuitive and I have no doubt that they will do the same with a phone) and Apple is great at integration with software, so even though there will be hurdles to overcome, Apple will eventually churn out a phone that is simple and is loved by everyone.
I also think there won't be a single serious Mac-User who won't have one. It'll just be too handy to have a device that will sync easily with the awesome Mac software.
-Clive
So Apple has a choice: Mac-Centric or not.
Knowing Apple, their first choice is "not" (which doesn't mean it will start out that way, but we'll just have to wait to find out). Apple would then have to either write iCal et al. for Windows or build in support for Outlook, ...uh... photo viewer... whatever PCs use for photos.
Both are daunting tasks.
Conclusion: In order for Apple to make a phone as good and as universal as the iPod, it will have to accomplish one of the aforementioned daunting tasks.
Making a phone for Mac users would be a walk in the park, because 1) it's such a small microcosm, 2) It's an environment that they are familiar with.
Making a phone for everyone will not be as easy. HOWEVER, Apple is great at building OSes (the iPod OS is simple & intuitive and I have no doubt that they will do the same with a phone) and Apple is great at integration with software, so even though there will be hurdles to overcome, Apple will eventually churn out a phone that is simple and is loved by everyone.
I also think there won't be a single serious Mac-User who won't have one. It'll just be too handy to have a device that will sync easily with the awesome Mac software.
-Clive
Ruhruh
Apr 26, 02:59 PM
Can someone post the updated chart on which OS is making more profit, not only for the company behind the OS, but for developers? :rolleyes:
As much as I want Android to succeed, being a google fan, the OS along with the app store(s) and apps are not on the same level as iOS.
As a consumer, I could careless if Android has 99% of the market, I want the best ecosystem.
Nokia/Symbian dominated the phone market, at least worldwide, they are doing what now? As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Apple has been doing just fine for the last 10 years or so sticking to its devoted followers, they are not going to start releases 10 iPhone versions to compete to save their market share. But I'm going to guess they will continue to pull in the most cash.
As much as I want Android to succeed, being a google fan, the OS along with the app store(s) and apps are not on the same level as iOS.
As a consumer, I could careless if Android has 99% of the market, I want the best ecosystem.
Nokia/Symbian dominated the phone market, at least worldwide, they are doing what now? As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Apple has been doing just fine for the last 10 years or so sticking to its devoted followers, they are not going to start releases 10 iPhone versions to compete to save their market share. But I'm going to guess they will continue to pull in the most cash.
gglockner
May 6, 12:45 AM
I cannot believe that Apple would replace Intel with ARM. It would be a setback to the Mac: virtually everything would become incompatible once again. Remember how long it took the larger developers to create Universal versions of applications: Microsoft Office and Adobe CS.
The previous two transitions (680x0 -> PPC and PPC -> x86) weren't so painful if for no other reason than the install base was far smaller.
And putting ARM as a secondary processor so that Macs can run iOS apps? There's absolutely no need - x86 Macs can already run iOS apps well inside the iPhone emulator that comes with Xcode. The x86 processors are more than capable of emulating an ARM processor.
The previous two transitions (680x0 -> PPC and PPC -> x86) weren't so painful if for no other reason than the install base was far smaller.
And putting ARM as a secondary processor so that Macs can run iOS apps? There's absolutely no need - x86 Macs can already run iOS apps well inside the iPhone emulator that comes with Xcode. The x86 processors are more than capable of emulating an ARM processor.
Plutonius
May 6, 09:59 AM
Just waiting to hear from Aggie if he will temporarily form his own group as per "Don't Panic's" plan to get back to the starting room.
heisetax
Aug 4, 09:09 AM
Isn't that what Rosetta is for :p :D
Hardly Apple's fault. Apple has managed to transition all it's apps - Adobe is certainly dragging their collective feet.
Maybe you should blame AMD. They outdid Intel by increasing their % of the market. This put pressure on Intel to release their Core duo, Core 2 duo & Xeon 5100 6 months to a year or so early. This made Apple bring out their new Intel Macs much earlier than expected.
Because of the amount of work involved & the original Intel/Apple schedule, Adobe made the plan to skip the UB for CS2 & just make it part of CS3. This was to be on the same timetable as the original Intel Mac changes. They weere just too far into their schedule to make such large changes for a 6 month - year time.
MicroSoft just has a lot of problems doing upgrades. Virtual PC 7 was 6-9 months late. They quietly admitted that the programming was much harder than they thought it would be. That reason adds to the problem that the new version of MS Office also is changing to an XML file format for all of their programs. This means twice the trouble for MS. MS Office for Windows is usually a year ahead of the Mac MS Office upgrades. That means that if MS brings out their new Mac MS Office program in 2007 they will be the same year as MS Office for Windows. This actually means that the Mac MS Office program would be coming out a year ahead of schedule, not a year behind the schedule that many Intel Mac people believe shuld be the case. Also MS in my opinion has said that they will have 2 veersion of Office for the Mac, one PPC only & the other Intel Mac only. It just seems like they have said that they will have no UB for MS Office. This double programming may takke loner. It also will probably mean that the PPC Mac will not have as good of product upgrading/changes.
In another year the most of the software will be ready for the Intel Mac. By that time we may be seeing the 3rd group of Intel Macs, 4 or 5 if they keep up with the Intel/AMD Windows world.
Bill the TaxMan
Hardly Apple's fault. Apple has managed to transition all it's apps - Adobe is certainly dragging their collective feet.
Maybe you should blame AMD. They outdid Intel by increasing their % of the market. This put pressure on Intel to release their Core duo, Core 2 duo & Xeon 5100 6 months to a year or so early. This made Apple bring out their new Intel Macs much earlier than expected.
Because of the amount of work involved & the original Intel/Apple schedule, Adobe made the plan to skip the UB for CS2 & just make it part of CS3. This was to be on the same timetable as the original Intel Mac changes. They weere just too far into their schedule to make such large changes for a 6 month - year time.
MicroSoft just has a lot of problems doing upgrades. Virtual PC 7 was 6-9 months late. They quietly admitted that the programming was much harder than they thought it would be. That reason adds to the problem that the new version of MS Office also is changing to an XML file format for all of their programs. This means twice the trouble for MS. MS Office for Windows is usually a year ahead of the Mac MS Office upgrades. That means that if MS brings out their new Mac MS Office program in 2007 they will be the same year as MS Office for Windows. This actually means that the Mac MS Office program would be coming out a year ahead of schedule, not a year behind the schedule that many Intel Mac people believe shuld be the case. Also MS in my opinion has said that they will have 2 veersion of Office for the Mac, one PPC only & the other Intel Mac only. It just seems like they have said that they will have no UB for MS Office. This double programming may takke loner. It also will probably mean that the PPC Mac will not have as good of product upgrading/changes.
In another year the most of the software will be ready for the Intel Mac. By that time we may be seeing the 3rd group of Intel Macs, 4 or 5 if they keep up with the Intel/AMD Windows world.
Bill the TaxMan
diamond.g
Mar 28, 11:25 AM
Might like to point out that part of the problem with Android updates is not the manufactures but the Carriers.
AT&T being by far the worse offenders. If AT&T had its way the iPhone would never get more than security updates. To upgrade your OS you would have to buy a new phone.
This is no were more apparent that looking no farther than the GalaxyS phones. AT&T GalaxyS phone (Captivate) still is waiting on its Android 2.2 update when over seas it is already getting its Android 2.3 updated. Clearly it is not the manufacture causing problems but the carrier.
I hope the manufactures start taking a cue from Apple and MS to say screw the carriers and start supply updates for their phones. No more blocking the updates from the carriers.
Apple is about the only company that can get away with the delay. Most others would be fried for it. iPhone is already starting to show its age and delaying it longer will only make it worse.Fixed that for you. MS is getting screwed there too.
I am still waiting on the huge paradigm shift the iPhone was supposed to bring in the relationship between us and the carriers. Still waiting on my cheaper contracts because I buy the phone outright versus getting the subsidy...
AT&T being by far the worse offenders. If AT&T had its way the iPhone would never get more than security updates. To upgrade your OS you would have to buy a new phone.
This is no were more apparent that looking no farther than the GalaxyS phones. AT&T GalaxyS phone (Captivate) still is waiting on its Android 2.2 update when over seas it is already getting its Android 2.3 updated. Clearly it is not the manufacture causing problems but the carrier.
I hope the manufactures start taking a cue from Apple and MS to say screw the carriers and start supply updates for their phones. No more blocking the updates from the carriers.
Apple is about the only company that can get away with the delay. Most others would be fried for it. iPhone is already starting to show its age and delaying it longer will only make it worse.Fixed that for you. MS is getting screwed there too.
I am still waiting on the huge paradigm shift the iPhone was supposed to bring in the relationship between us and the carriers. Still waiting on my cheaper contracts because I buy the phone outright versus getting the subsidy...
petteri
Aug 11, 02:49 PM
And a pony?
Apple gonna start selling ponies!?!?! :eek: I'm gonna be the first to ride one out of my local Apple Store! What is going to be the AppleCare charge on one of these suckers?
Ahh, the joys of waiting for the next new chip.... :p
Apple gonna start selling ponies!?!?! :eek: I'm gonna be the first to ride one out of my local Apple Store! What is going to be the AppleCare charge on one of these suckers?
Ahh, the joys of waiting for the next new chip.... :p
Eidorian
Jul 24, 07:58 AM
Ok, so I hate to admit it, but I can confirm from my experimental days that OSX 86 reports at least P4 CPUs innaccurately as mentioned above. The system profiler in OSX86 does attempt to describe the chip. My HT P4 2.4 GHz was reported as a 3.something. Don't know if it was the hyperthreading or the HT coupled with the OSX86 hacked version itself was the problem in the reporting.Yeah, OS X seems to report non-standard Intel chips as "Genuine Intel". I wouldn't be surprised if it goes into a debug mode.
zim
Nov 24, 11:04 PM
Apple has about as good a chance of entering the cell phone market as LG does entering the MP3 player market.
Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well.. and 'playing with others' isn't one of their strengths, either. Both are requirements to enter an already highly competitive cell phone marketplace.
Apple needs to get back to what they do best, which is innovate in untapped or barely tapped markets where they really stand out and shine against the competition.. Apple II, Original Macintosh, iPod, etc. Not jump into an already saturated market with little to distinguish themselves between the competition but a pretty case.
LG does make an mp3 player (http://www.lge.com/products/category/list/audio_portable_mp3%20player.jhtml).
I believe that Apple's success has been based on the simplicity of the product not on how rich in features it is. Cell phones are currently overly complex, attempting to do more then what their intent was, which is where I think Apple can make a difference. Removing complexity is what Apple does best.
As for playing with others, Apple has constantly made attempts to bridge the gap between PC and Macs. Look at the early PowerMacs when apple had translation tools, and the ability to read PC formated disks.
"Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well"
- Simplicity comes at a price.
Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well.. and 'playing with others' isn't one of their strengths, either. Both are requirements to enter an already highly competitive cell phone marketplace.
Apple needs to get back to what they do best, which is innovate in untapped or barely tapped markets where they really stand out and shine against the competition.. Apple II, Original Macintosh, iPod, etc. Not jump into an already saturated market with little to distinguish themselves between the competition but a pretty case.
LG does make an mp3 player (http://www.lge.com/products/category/list/audio_portable_mp3%20player.jhtml).
I believe that Apple's success has been based on the simplicity of the product not on how rich in features it is. Cell phones are currently overly complex, attempting to do more then what their intent was, which is where I think Apple can make a difference. Removing complexity is what Apple does best.
As for playing with others, Apple has constantly made attempts to bridge the gap between PC and Macs. Look at the early PowerMacs when apple had translation tools, and the ability to read PC formated disks.
"Apple doesn't do inexpensive very well"
- Simplicity comes at a price.
Loge
Aug 7, 04:16 PM
SO in the Paris expo is where we'll most likely see updated MBP? :confused:
They don't need a special event for what will most likely just be an updated processor.
They don't need a special event for what will most likely just be an updated processor.
unlinked
Apr 25, 11:14 AM
Correct, and that's why Steve is telling the truth unlike the trolls pretending this is an Apple conspiracy. That file is stuck on your hard disk and goes nowhere. Delete it and you don't even have that (as I did months ago when this story first broke). I tried the mapping tool and it won't work on my machine because consolidated.db cannot be found. Yet my iPhone works just fine, and Location Services works fine too.
Apple has never grabbed this information.
Android, on the other hand, exists so that it can serve advertiser's needs. Apple has been Opt In, but Android is Opt Out, which means your data gets transmitted to advertisers by default. You bet they track you on Droids. That's the entire business model.
So the database exists for no reason at all? Sounds somewhat unlikely to me.
Apple has never grabbed this information.
Android, on the other hand, exists so that it can serve advertiser's needs. Apple has been Opt In, but Android is Opt Out, which means your data gets transmitted to advertisers by default. You bet they track you on Droids. That's the entire business model.
So the database exists for no reason at all? Sounds somewhat unlikely to me.
fisherttm
Mar 28, 11:25 AM
I would say it's possible knowing the way Apple likes to be secretive that the future of iOS5 & OSX could actually have a phone announcement? With the cloud rumors and such I could see it being a here is what the new OS will do and here are the products that will help you do it. Just would seem weird in the world of technology that they would deviate from their announcement schedule. However, I do agree with the one poster that says 18 months to most people isn't a big deal over 15; it's the early adopters and tech heads that would get ticked.
Hoping the rumor is wrong wife's phone is in need of upgrade and I plan to give her the 4 and take the 5 once it is released. :)
Hoping the rumor is wrong wife's phone is in need of upgrade and I plan to give her the 4 and take the 5 once it is released. :)
thelookingglass
Mar 30, 09:15 AM
I like the competition, and the cloud concept is definitely promising, but I don't think this is a solution I want. Call me pessimistic, but I don't want to rely on another entity for access to my own information. I don't want to store all my music and movies "in the cloud" and hope there is no complications. Rather, what I want is to be able to access my home computer via the cloud, but if all else fails, it's still saved on my home computer, not some remote server I can't access
The ironic thing is your data is probably safer in the cloud (where there is adequate redundancy in multiple geographic locations) than just simply sitting on your home computer.
The ironic thing is your data is probably safer in the cloud (where there is adequate redundancy in multiple geographic locations) than just simply sitting on your home computer.
dj2mc
Nov 26, 01:12 PM
To lay down some feedback of my own, I have used Sophos for a while and I am very pleased with it. I had Clam XAV for the longest time, and to be honest I never felt very safe w/ it because it never had the image of it was even scanning legibly, sometimes it would pop up with scan errors, corrupt updates, etc. The list goes on... Sophos is a prime example of an AV that has characteristics that others are missing. It's stable, fast, reliable and ultimately gives you the best protection because it's always scanning, and always searching the file you open each time. What more can you want?
So, I tip my hat off to Sophos
So, I tip my hat off to Sophos
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 03:12 PM
Someone who worked across the aisle from me had a PowerCD connected to his Mac and it was really nice, but it was way too expensive. Then again, you could say that about any of the equipment at the time. It's become much better but the value is often not apparent to the majority of the people.
If I remember right, when a person removed the PowerCD from its stand to listen to the music on the run it failed to give good performance. Apple forgot to include any buffer memory and skips were more the event then not. At the time, less expenisive protable CD players had such buffer memory, so it was a real dumb move on Apple's part.
If I remember right, when a person removed the PowerCD from its stand to listen to the music on the run it failed to give good performance. Apple forgot to include any buffer memory and skips were more the event then not. At the time, less expenisive protable CD players had such buffer memory, so it was a real dumb move on Apple's part.
No comments:
Post a Comment