I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:44 PM
Um....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Im not saying stop using energy. I'm saying use a different source. Wind, water, sun. theres plenty of other ways to heat your home out there. Geothermal too
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Im not saying stop using energy. I'm saying use a different source. Wind, water, sun. theres plenty of other ways to heat your home out there. Geothermal too
boncellis
Jul 12, 10:15 AM
This is news, albeit somewhat inconsequential in the end. I would have thought the iMac would see Merom as its upgrade because of heat issues--perhaps Conroe won't pose a problem or there is a slight redesign of the iMac case in the cards.
As far as the Mac Pro, there is a difference between Woodcrest and Conroe beyond the multiprocessor functionality, however small. But, in my opinion, to have the entire Mac Pro line be Woodcrest would mean Apple missing out on a market segment that want a pro level machine at an intermediate price. If Apple includes just one Conroe configuration along with the Woodcrest screamers, and prices it accordingly, I think they would find something of a "sweet spot" in covering the majority of its users and potential switchers.
The price is what's going to make or break it. And I don't see it breaking.
As far as the Mac Pro, there is a difference between Woodcrest and Conroe beyond the multiprocessor functionality, however small. But, in my opinion, to have the entire Mac Pro line be Woodcrest would mean Apple missing out on a market segment that want a pro level machine at an intermediate price. If Apple includes just one Conroe configuration along with the Woodcrest screamers, and prices it accordingly, I think they would find something of a "sweet spot" in covering the majority of its users and potential switchers.
The price is what's going to make or break it. And I don't see it breaking.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
bokdol
Sep 26, 02:18 PM
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.
not mac book pro...
mac pro
not mac book pro...
mac pro
res1233
May 2, 04:21 PM
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
EDIT: Because trolls will feed on anything, what i meant is that's what you'd have to do to run code without user permission. The code couldn't do much other than delete everything in your home folder but... Well, it can delete everything in your home folder. To be perfectly honest though, whoever doesn't back that stuff up is asking for trouble considering it doesn't even take malware to lose your data.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
EDIT: Because trolls will feed on anything, what i meant is that's what you'd have to do to run code without user permission. The code couldn't do much other than delete everything in your home folder but... Well, it can delete everything in your home folder. To be perfectly honest though, whoever doesn't back that stuff up is asking for trouble considering it doesn't even take malware to lose your data.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:51 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:26 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
Apple OC
Apr 23, 02:29 AM
This is just a form of soldier conditioning. Don't fool yourself into thinking we don't do this to our own soldiers. That's why we get them when they are young 18 year olds who are impressionable and tell them they are doing this for "god and country". The good wolves will "go to heaven" protecting the sheep. "God Speed" in their mission. Being sent out to get blown up by an IED is as cannon fodderish as strapping one to your chest. The only difference is that the latter tactic is used in times of despiration against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. Just like Kamakazis, Viet Cong, etc. And now these ppl make our TV's and clothing. ;)
sorry but you are wrong ... we do not tell soldiers they are fighting for God or that there is anything such as being a martyr
nice try though :rolleyes:
sorry but you are wrong ... we do not tell soldiers they are fighting for God or that there is anything such as being a martyr
nice try though :rolleyes:
jiggie2g
Mar 18, 03:23 PM
DVD Jon is unstoppable this guy could crack a Diamond.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:43 AM
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments.
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
~loserman~
Mar 20, 07:25 PM
Not to the holder of the copyright.
Agreed.
If these people who argue against copyright were having their creations stolen and it was affecting their living they would feel differently.
Agreed.
If these people who argue against copyright were having their creations stolen and it was affecting their living they would feel differently.
MacBoobsPro
Sep 20, 04:09 AM
I don't want to have to put yet another box on the shelf under my TV and have yet another remote control kicking around my living room.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
Im hoping Apple bring out a HDTV of there own, with iTV built in. Basically a 50" iMac :D Seriously though that would be cool and I would buy it straight away. Eventually i think thats where Apple will end up.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
Im hoping Apple bring out a HDTV of there own, with iTV built in. Basically a 50" iMac :D Seriously though that would be cool and I would buy it straight away. Eventually i think thats where Apple will end up.
milozauckerman
Jul 14, 02:20 PM
I got excited for a second - hey a $1799 low end quad, I'm sold! Oh, wait, just one processor, never mind.
Too expensive on the low-end, if true. I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Too expensive on the low-end, if true. I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
skunk
Apr 24, 11:00 AM
So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.How could you even think such a thing?
:eek:
:eek:
tigress666
Apr 10, 01:00 PM
If you are going to buy something to mainly play games on when you are out of the house which one are you going to buy.
Ipod Touch: 230$ USD
Nintendo DS: 130$ USD
PSP: 130$ USD
I think the price of the PSP and DS make them more attractive that and the point they are not an mp3 player that can play touch games.
The iOS devices do not have the hardware that a made for gaming handheld has. a PSP still has better graphics then any iOS game rendered on the spot. The PSP and DS also have a larger advantage...Hard buttons. for real gaming that is a must.
I think the problem Nintendo and Sony will have with iOS/Android devices isn't people picking one or the other. It's the fact that the iOS/Android devices are getting so ubiquitous, they have to compete more with, "Do I get the PSP/DS on top of this phone I already have that I can get games cheaper on? Sure, they are better suited, but 1. I already have this device 2. games are cheaper 3. This device is more portable and can go with me more places 4. I wouldn't have to carry around two devices if I wanted to game somewhere."
Basically, Nintendo and Sony have to have advantages that make up for the advantages some one would see in just using the smart phone they already have. And part of the problem is that you are starting to see some of the same games on the smart phone. Or at least similar enough games that you may not need to get that DS or PSP if you want to play something similar. Sure, there are compromises, but for some people (like me), the compromises are worth it and it's not worthy buying a whole 'nother device.
Sure, you'll get some hard core gamers that don't want to compromise, but the question is, are they enough of a market to keep the non smartphone handhelds afloat? I think for the sake of us who do want to compromise, we should probably hope, cause for new games that is where the money is (notice most of the games that are not "angry birds" or freemium gams on the iOS are ports over from the handhelds. Though iOS is starting to see some original games made just for it too, Chaos Rings or Eternal Legacy anyone?).
So, the threat isn't choosing between the two devices, the threat is that smart phones are becoming so common, they have to convince people that it is worth buying their handheld device *as well* as the smartphone the person already has.
I will agree that consoles have nothing to worry about (but they didn't have anything to worry about from any handheld, they are not really competing in the same market at all).
Ipod Touch: 230$ USD
Nintendo DS: 130$ USD
PSP: 130$ USD
I think the price of the PSP and DS make them more attractive that and the point they are not an mp3 player that can play touch games.
The iOS devices do not have the hardware that a made for gaming handheld has. a PSP still has better graphics then any iOS game rendered on the spot. The PSP and DS also have a larger advantage...Hard buttons. for real gaming that is a must.
I think the problem Nintendo and Sony will have with iOS/Android devices isn't people picking one or the other. It's the fact that the iOS/Android devices are getting so ubiquitous, they have to compete more with, "Do I get the PSP/DS on top of this phone I already have that I can get games cheaper on? Sure, they are better suited, but 1. I already have this device 2. games are cheaper 3. This device is more portable and can go with me more places 4. I wouldn't have to carry around two devices if I wanted to game somewhere."
Basically, Nintendo and Sony have to have advantages that make up for the advantages some one would see in just using the smart phone they already have. And part of the problem is that you are starting to see some of the same games on the smart phone. Or at least similar enough games that you may not need to get that DS or PSP if you want to play something similar. Sure, there are compromises, but for some people (like me), the compromises are worth it and it's not worthy buying a whole 'nother device.
Sure, you'll get some hard core gamers that don't want to compromise, but the question is, are they enough of a market to keep the non smartphone handhelds afloat? I think for the sake of us who do want to compromise, we should probably hope, cause for new games that is where the money is (notice most of the games that are not "angry birds" or freemium gams on the iOS are ports over from the handhelds. Though iOS is starting to see some original games made just for it too, Chaos Rings or Eternal Legacy anyone?).
So, the threat isn't choosing between the two devices, the threat is that smart phones are becoming so common, they have to convince people that it is worth buying their handheld device *as well* as the smartphone the person already has.
I will agree that consoles have nothing to worry about (but they didn't have anything to worry about from any handheld, they are not really competing in the same market at all).
29point97
Apr 12, 11:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:25 AM
What are tablets going to overtake? I just dont get it... Desktops? Laptops?
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
Got it, it's a definite prediction.
What are tablets going to overtake? Yes, desktops and latops. In 2020 the average person will buy a tablet as their dominant computer. Techies will still use traditional technology such as PCs, and specialists will continue to do so, but since there are FAR more average persons then such specialists and techies, the number of tablets sold in 2020 will exceed the number of traditional PCs. That's my prediction.
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
Got it, it's a definite prediction.
What are tablets going to overtake? Yes, desktops and latops. In 2020 the average person will buy a tablet as their dominant computer. Techies will still use traditional technology such as PCs, and specialists will continue to do so, but since there are FAR more average persons then such specialists and techies, the number of tablets sold in 2020 will exceed the number of traditional PCs. That's my prediction.
fatfreddy
Mar 11, 04:46 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=016_1299829101
More footage.
More footage.
AidenShaw
Oct 29, 11:48 AM
No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest.
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
Evangelion
Jul 13, 05:05 AM
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
fatphone4
Jun 27, 10:50 AM
I was on sprint for 10 years, dropped 6 to 7 calls a day. I switched one of my 8 phones into AT&T (iphone) to test it out. I did not drop a single call for 3 weeks. So I cancelled all my sprint lines and switched to AT&T, been on AT&T for 8 months maybe 6 dropped calls since. Much better service IMO
Interstella5555
Mar 18, 10:53 AM
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
You used to. Back in the day most ISPs would charge per IP address for high speed Internet.
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
You used to. Back in the day most ISPs would charge per IP address for high speed Internet.
marksman
Apr 20, 08:19 PM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
You are a horribly immoral person.
I don't steal big macs from your place of work. Get a grip on your attitude.
Stay with your inferior Android devices. Nobody cares about the only thing you can cite that is better is that you are better capable of breaking the law and stealing from other people.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
You are a horribly immoral person.
I don't steal big macs from your place of work. Get a grip on your attitude.
Stay with your inferior Android devices. Nobody cares about the only thing you can cite that is better is that you are better capable of breaking the law and stealing from other people.
suneohair
Oct 26, 12:01 PM
I highly doubt this will be a simple swap. The Clovertowns are quite expensive, not to mention slower in terms of raw clock speed, so expect it to be a high priced upgrade.
