SiliconAddict
Aug 7, 07:50 PM
Not very innovative so-far. The Intel change took the OS's soul and the inspiration.
Give me a fracking break. Intel has NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING. I wish PPC fanbois would just give it up. Soon they will be claiming that ozone depletion is due too Intel chips.
does upgrading to leopard cost money for tiger users?
Yes.
Give me a fracking break. Intel has NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING. I wish PPC fanbois would just give it up. Soon they will be claiming that ozone depletion is due too Intel chips.
does upgrading to leopard cost money for tiger users?
Yes.
Jimmieboy
Aug 8, 01:45 AM
Yahoo! Leopard looks awesome! Time machine looks like a lifesaver for me and spaces makes life so much easier. THANKS STEVE!
tartufo
Apr 12, 08:28 AM
I hope not. I want the 5 now :)
http://www.truffles.bg
http://www.truffles-bg.com
http://www.truffles.bg
http://www.truffles-bg.com
MacRumorUser
Nov 27, 04:13 PM
Gran Turismo: The REAL driving simulator ....as long as you've grinded long enough. :rolleyes:
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
padr�
Sep 19, 10:18 AM
so... after reading here for a while i got a question, its kinda stupid, i'm good at that,
first off, i was doubting between the 24" and the macpro so i disided that for my needs i should realy go with a macpro, but know that i'm hearing things about this 8 core macpro, i'm realy doubting about ordering my quad macpro this month,
has anybody got an idea of how long it would be before apple launches " a macpro octo " :confused:
thx for your time :)
first off, i was doubting between the 24" and the macpro so i disided that for my needs i should realy go with a macpro, but know that i'm hearing things about this 8 core macpro, i'm realy doubting about ordering my quad macpro this month,
has anybody got an idea of how long it would be before apple launches " a macpro octo " :confused:
thx for your time :)
ChazUK
Mar 31, 03:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Blade Build/FRG83) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
I'm not impressed by this at all. The very fact that the Gingerbread source is available has given my Orange UK branded ZTE Blade Gingerbread before other phones had official builds.
I know that some here despise all that may compete with Apple but the Android community and developers who put work into projects like Cyanogenmod are an awesome bunch. It would be sad to see the community go by the wayside because of any change in the distribution of Android.
I'm not impressed by this at all. The very fact that the Gingerbread source is available has given my Orange UK branded ZTE Blade Gingerbread before other phones had official builds.
I know that some here despise all that may compete with Apple but the Android community and developers who put work into projects like Cyanogenmod are an awesome bunch. It would be sad to see the community go by the wayside because of any change in the distribution of Android.
Slumpey
Apr 8, 06:53 AM
To avoid any hastle buy the ipad 2 from target. Was able to buy two on different days using their inventory tracker found on the web.. They don't hastle you with service plans, unnecessary accessories, etc which best buy does.
Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk
reallynotnick
Jul 20, 08:23 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:25 AM
Oracle's acquisition of Sun was just... bad. I have nothing good to say about that.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
I'm not sure about that .. my hfs+ partitions always seem to get corrupted more often than any linux box i've ever owned. I hate to say it, but probably even more than any windows box i've owned.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
I'm not sure about that .. my hfs+ partitions always seem to get corrupted more often than any linux box i've ever owned. I hate to say it, but probably even more than any windows box i've owned.
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:50 PM
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
valkraider
Apr 25, 03:31 PM
Its my right to privacy so back off.
You also have a right to not carry an iPhone in your pocket.
You also have a right to not carry an iPhone in your pocket.
smiddlehurst
Mar 31, 02:53 PM
Thats not at all what this article is saying. The Android project is still going to be "open source".
Umm, not by Andy Rubin's own definition it's not:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
The problem here is Google aren't playing fair with their partners and they really ought to get grief over it. Good lord, remember the absolute storm of hate that went Apple's way when the subscription details were announced? This is actually far worse for those that depend on the Android OS yet geeks are scrambling to praise Google for doing it....
Now here's the thing... at the end of the day this is probably the right move for Android from a consumer point of view. It's likely to make it easier to get a device that you can update and that isn't drowning in crapware. The problem is they should have done it a year ago when the problem first became obvious. They haven't, they've got a LOT of companies heavily invested in Android and now they're radically changing the rules.
Frankly I wonder if something has gone seriously wrong within Google. Remember when 2.1 came out there were strong hints that they were working on separating the core OS from the GUI to allow far easier, almost device independent updates? We've heard virtually nothing about that since. Honeycomb is, by their own admission, a cludge, albeit a cludge with a lot of potential. I can't help but wonder if they've failed to come up with a software solution that'd let them handle fragmentation and keep a true open philosophy and are falling back on this as plan B. I'd also love to know if Amazon making moves into the App Store space and now launching Cloud Player before Google have an equivalent service have them worried. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's conditions in those new partnership deals to make things like introducing new App Stores in the default build a lot harder.
Umm, not by Andy Rubin's own definition it's not:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
The problem here is Google aren't playing fair with their partners and they really ought to get grief over it. Good lord, remember the absolute storm of hate that went Apple's way when the subscription details were announced? This is actually far worse for those that depend on the Android OS yet geeks are scrambling to praise Google for doing it....
Now here's the thing... at the end of the day this is probably the right move for Android from a consumer point of view. It's likely to make it easier to get a device that you can update and that isn't drowning in crapware. The problem is they should have done it a year ago when the problem first became obvious. They haven't, they've got a LOT of companies heavily invested in Android and now they're radically changing the rules.
Frankly I wonder if something has gone seriously wrong within Google. Remember when 2.1 came out there were strong hints that they were working on separating the core OS from the GUI to allow far easier, almost device independent updates? We've heard virtually nothing about that since. Honeycomb is, by their own admission, a cludge, albeit a cludge with a lot of potential. I can't help but wonder if they've failed to come up with a software solution that'd let them handle fragmentation and keep a true open philosophy and are falling back on this as plan B. I'd also love to know if Amazon making moves into the App Store space and now launching Cloud Player before Google have an equivalent service have them worried. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's conditions in those new partnership deals to make things like introducing new App Stores in the default build a lot harder.
maclaptop
Apr 14, 04:48 PM
still, you cannot say the iphone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
+1
+1
Reach9
Apr 11, 05:57 PM
Yea that is obvious. The iPhone is better.
Makes sense coming from an Apple Fan :rolleyes:
Makes sense coming from an Apple Fan :rolleyes:
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 08:14 PM
Interestingly this contradicts the information my friend on the design team hinted towards. I know the release is imminent so time will tell.
So are you saying that the apps will be broken up and sold individually?
So are you saying that the apps will be broken up and sold individually?
gauriemma
Nov 29, 10:34 AM
Sounds like Universal is realizing that their anticipated cash influx they were hoping to see from Zune sales isn't going to materialize, so they're looking to leech off a player that will actually be AROUND in 2007.
dakwar
Mar 22, 02:48 PM
I wasn't thinking straight, big deal.
And Thankfully I'm more successful in life than you'll ever be. Thanks.
Keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better at night.
And Thankfully I'm more successful in life than you'll ever be. Thanks.
Keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better at night.
scottlinux
Sep 13, 10:32 PM
If you don't think so, then you are paying way too much attention to the content and not enough to the process by which they are conveying that content.
Well if the content is crap, who cares to watch? Content of TV is more important to me. I'd rather see a fascinating news show or program over rabbit ears than watch the Today Show in HD.
My post of this news has nothing to do with content.
This wasn't clear the first time. You sounded like a crazed American Idol fan with your original post. And HD broadcasts are nothing new...
Well if the content is crap, who cares to watch? Content of TV is more important to me. I'd rather see a fascinating news show or program over rabbit ears than watch the Today Show in HD.
My post of this news has nothing to do with content.
This wasn't clear the first time. You sounded like a crazed American Idol fan with your original post. And HD broadcasts are nothing new...
Tomaz
Aug 7, 04:30 PM
If you were picking on Mail.app's Stationery I'd probably agree with you.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
I'm not comparing it to system restore but to Volume Shadow Copy from Windows Server 2003. File-by-file snapshot by MS 3 years ago!
I think Time Machine looks and probably is good, but after having seen all the pictures of the banners at WWDC mocking Vista, I expected someting REALLY NEW, not just warmed up. If they can't show the super super secret new stuff yet, then they shouldn't have used those banners. I find that arrogant...
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
I'm not comparing it to system restore but to Volume Shadow Copy from Windows Server 2003. File-by-file snapshot by MS 3 years ago!
I think Time Machine looks and probably is good, but after having seen all the pictures of the banners at WWDC mocking Vista, I expected someting REALLY NEW, not just warmed up. If they can't show the super super secret new stuff yet, then they shouldn't have used those banners. I find that arrogant...
Popeye206
Apr 6, 04:45 PM
Dude, you forgot to use your android fan-filter. :p
This is why the xoom won't sell as well as the ipad. It needs to offer a low-end introductory model.
Andy Ihnatko wrote if an ipad competitor were to have a weekend retreat about the goals of their tablet, then a sub $500 price wouldn't be a bad place to start. Granted, that can't be its only feature, because Dell has proven that a cheap price won't bring them in droves. However, if that's the starting point and then the manufacturer adds the requisite features, the tablet might do well.
I don't think price is the issue. It's more complex than that.
First, have you actually played with or used a Xoom? Technically, very nice and cool. Consumer-wise, confusing and weird. Even the demo apps on the thing were not all that great and a couple actually made it look bad.
The iPad is sooooo much easier and smoother. So much more consumer friendly and appealing.
Second, iPad is the standard. The iPad, like the iPhone, is the standard for tablets and consumers tend to migrate to "the standard". Why? It's safe.
Third... Momentum. Consumers see iPads selling like crazy. So, the more they sell, the more people want them. Everyone wants to follow the crowd... just like Lemmings.
iPad = Low risk. It's easy to see that if you Buy an iPad, you're buying a device that is going to be there for a while. Buying a Xoom is risky, unproven and if you buy one, you might have just bought a dead end product. Just like Samsung has already proven with the Tab 1.0. The iPad is a safe purchase.
So, it's more than USB port and processors that is going to knock Apple off the Tablet thrown. Other Tablet makers are going to need to hit many aspects of the consumer to sway them away.
Xoom.... I say Fail.
BTW... the Xoom at the Best Buy here is broken... been that way for two weeks now according to the sales guy.
This is why the xoom won't sell as well as the ipad. It needs to offer a low-end introductory model.
Andy Ihnatko wrote if an ipad competitor were to have a weekend retreat about the goals of their tablet, then a sub $500 price wouldn't be a bad place to start. Granted, that can't be its only feature, because Dell has proven that a cheap price won't bring them in droves. However, if that's the starting point and then the manufacturer adds the requisite features, the tablet might do well.
I don't think price is the issue. It's more complex than that.
First, have you actually played with or used a Xoom? Technically, very nice and cool. Consumer-wise, confusing and weird. Even the demo apps on the thing were not all that great and a couple actually made it look bad.
The iPad is sooooo much easier and smoother. So much more consumer friendly and appealing.
Second, iPad is the standard. The iPad, like the iPhone, is the standard for tablets and consumers tend to migrate to "the standard". Why? It's safe.
Third... Momentum. Consumers see iPads selling like crazy. So, the more they sell, the more people want them. Everyone wants to follow the crowd... just like Lemmings.
iPad = Low risk. It's easy to see that if you Buy an iPad, you're buying a device that is going to be there for a while. Buying a Xoom is risky, unproven and if you buy one, you might have just bought a dead end product. Just like Samsung has already proven with the Tab 1.0. The iPad is a safe purchase.
So, it's more than USB port and processors that is going to knock Apple off the Tablet thrown. Other Tablet makers are going to need to hit many aspects of the consumer to sway them away.
Xoom.... I say Fail.
BTW... the Xoom at the Best Buy here is broken... been that way for two weeks now according to the sales guy.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:58 PM
Only if you have an active subscription on all of them. That's the number the graph behind the link shows.
That may be, but I highly doubt every infant, elderly folks, and the poverty stricken all have cell phones. If that's the case, then I'd have to say that there are a lot of people who's financial priorities are kinda messed.
That may be, but I highly doubt every infant, elderly folks, and the poverty stricken all have cell phones. If that's the case, then I'd have to say that there are a lot of people who's financial priorities are kinda messed.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 28, 06:33 PM
That is a good point... I was "lumped" in as a liberal and I don't consider myself one. I am more moderate. Live and let live kind of guy...
I'm a mixture. Liberal, moderate, and conservative.
I'm a mixture. Liberal, moderate, and conservative.
rdowns
Feb 28, 06:29 PM
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
radiohead14
Mar 22, 04:12 PM
Samsung can say all they want about their products. There are the following glaring issues:
1. Has anyone realize how much less Samsung's profit margins will be on the Galaxy Tab versus the iPad2? (ie. Apple retains a high profitability based on inhouse product development rather than contracting to third parties like other hardware developers)
2. Given what I perceive to be an extremely small profit margin, I find it difficult from an investor standpoint to endorse Samsung's business model.
3. It is next to impossible from a longterm business perspective that Samsung can price match Apple in this respect. It's an unsustainable business practice.
i believe samsung manufactures a lot of their own hardware.. from the display panels to the chips. don't they provide apple with parts for the ipad too? i think this is how samsung is able to price match apple here
1. Has anyone realize how much less Samsung's profit margins will be on the Galaxy Tab versus the iPad2? (ie. Apple retains a high profitability based on inhouse product development rather than contracting to third parties like other hardware developers)
2. Given what I perceive to be an extremely small profit margin, I find it difficult from an investor standpoint to endorse Samsung's business model.
3. It is next to impossible from a longterm business perspective that Samsung can price match Apple in this respect. It's an unsustainable business practice.
i believe samsung manufactures a lot of their own hardware.. from the display panels to the chips. don't they provide apple with parts for the ipad too? i think this is how samsung is able to price match apple here
No comments:
Post a Comment