FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
cr2sh
Jul 24, 06:29 PM
(Looks at watch)
Is it time for another ****** apple mouse already?
Is it time for another ****** apple mouse already?
iDrinkKoolAid
Jul 10, 12:22 PM
Really? I love the whole Inspector idea and the side toolbar in Word type thing.
Well, I guess these kinds of things are preferential. Perhaps I'm more used to Micro$oft Office toolbars.
Anyhow, I find myself using Pages more often. I'll just tell my boss to buy a Mac Mini if he wants to read my documents. :D
If Apple does come out with a spreadsheet, it better be more usable than what one can get currently on Pages. One major omission is that one cannot create a graph directly from a table (you have to 'cut and paste').
Well, I guess these kinds of things are preferential. Perhaps I'm more used to Micro$oft Office toolbars.
Anyhow, I find myself using Pages more often. I'll just tell my boss to buy a Mac Mini if he wants to read my documents. :D
If Apple does come out with a spreadsheet, it better be more usable than what one can get currently on Pages. One major omission is that one cannot create a graph directly from a table (you have to 'cut and paste').
theanimala
Apr 30, 08:57 AM
This could potentially be the single dumbest post I have ever read on the entire Internet. Bravo!
What doesn't Amazon sell? toilet paper, tampons, tooth paste, and it is worth 80 billion, when it should be worth 1 billion. It is an uninspired discounter, like online-Walmart.
On Amazon you can buy used comic books, used read softcover novels, used 10 year old PaperMate pens, it is like a giant flea market.
They need sales and prestige to keep up their scam.
High valuations should belong to high tech companies. Amazon says the Kindle is their heart, when it represents less than 0.1% of its sales.
On Amazon they sell fertilizer made from dung.
Apple is instead a high tech company. It makes money by selling high advanced technology.
Unlike Amazon, which has no research and development budget (how much research do you need to carry Q-tips and tampons?), Apple is not a scam. It is what it says it ism a high tech edge company. Amazon says the same, but it is sad flea market selling dirty used bird feeders.
What doesn't Amazon sell? toilet paper, tampons, tooth paste, and it is worth 80 billion, when it should be worth 1 billion. It is an uninspired discounter, like online-Walmart.
On Amazon you can buy used comic books, used read softcover novels, used 10 year old PaperMate pens, it is like a giant flea market.
They need sales and prestige to keep up their scam.
High valuations should belong to high tech companies. Amazon says the Kindle is their heart, when it represents less than 0.1% of its sales.
On Amazon they sell fertilizer made from dung.
Apple is instead a high tech company. It makes money by selling high advanced technology.
Unlike Amazon, which has no research and development budget (how much research do you need to carry Q-tips and tampons?), Apple is not a scam. It is what it says it ism a high tech edge company. Amazon says the same, but it is sad flea market selling dirty used bird feeders.
more...
southernpaws
Apr 23, 04:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
Correction: 260000 HTC Thunderbolts in 2 weeks.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/vz042111a.png
My point remains unchanged, but thanks for the clarification
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
Correction: 260000 HTC Thunderbolts in 2 weeks.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/vz042111a.png
My point remains unchanged, but thanks for the clarification
Don't panic
Apr 28, 05:46 PM
Anyway, I�m going into the hospital tomorrow morning and I�m not sure when I�ll be posting again.
hope it was nothing serious and everything went all right.
get well.
hope it was nothing serious and everything went all right.
get well.
more...
Apple all life
Oct 20, 08:37 PM
http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv245/ninjasownyou/chrome_mini_gryblk_09.jpg Chrome mini metro. I dont really ride bikes but I still think its an awesome bag.
tny
Jul 25, 08:17 AM
It's possible that the device has not yet been approved in other countries, and Apple rushed the release because it leaked yesterday.
More likely Apple leaked it on purpose to build excitement for the release. Anyway, my Mighty Hamster is on the way.
More likely Apple leaked it on purpose to build excitement for the release. Anyway, my Mighty Hamster is on the way.
more...
Umbongo
May 3, 07:45 AM
Not really sure why Apple can't bring themselves to put an i7 by default in a $2,000 machine. That's kind of ridiculous.
Because it would cost them another $100 in parts without increasing sales. This way they make more money per sale and will make even more from those who want it. There would be no processor upgrade path if they put the i7 as default.
Because it would cost them another $100 in parts without increasing sales. This way they make more money per sale and will make even more from those who want it. There would be no processor upgrade path if they put the i7 as default.
trainguy77
Oct 20, 11:06 PM
I spent most of the night last night trying to get gpu2 running in wine on the i7 machine but ran into a problem and gave up. But I have found that the issue may not be with my set up, it may be the wu are bad so I will work on that again tonight to see what happens if I can get a different wu. Here is some info. (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=82110)
I would love to add the points from my 2 gtx 960's especially since that is why I got them :D
here is a how too: http://moderngeek.com/node/81
This might help too: http://gpu2.twomurs.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
I would love to add the points from my 2 gtx 960's especially since that is why I got them :D
here is a how too: http://moderngeek.com/node/81
This might help too: http://gpu2.twomurs.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
more...
profets
Apr 25, 08:40 AM
why do people believe this is possible? Apple will not allow one carrier to undersell the other on the SAME DEVICE...just won't happen it's bad for sales...which is why there is no competition between AT&T and Verizon...similar plans on voice text and data...otherwise everyone would play carrier swap every few month to get the best deal...if Tmobile gets the iPhone while still independent from AT&T you better believe you won't get unlimited everything for 70 bucks
I would guess its because outside of the US there's countries with multiple carriers that compete on price/features/plans as well. I don't think Apple will not allow it to happen, I'd say that AT&T won't allow it to happen (assuming the buyout goes through).
Besides, if the iPhone gets the 1700 3G band added, I know theres people here in Canada who will use it on Wind with $35 unlimited everything.
I would guess its because outside of the US there's countries with multiple carriers that compete on price/features/plans as well. I don't think Apple will not allow it to happen, I'd say that AT&T won't allow it to happen (assuming the buyout goes through).
Besides, if the iPhone gets the 1700 3G band added, I know theres people here in Canada who will use it on Wind with $35 unlimited everything.
albarran9
Jan 28, 11:52 PM
uDAC is not an amp. its a DAC.
The uDAC-2 has both a DAC and an amp. NuForce.com "As a step beyond the successful uDAC, the uDAC-2 boasts a highly linear TOCOS volume control for improved channel tracking at low listening levels, in addition to 24bit/96kHz USB DAC and an improved headphone amp. "
have you noticed a big difference with the amp? i have the same headphones, which are fantastic, btw.
It hasn't been delivered yet, I'll let you know how it sounds when it arrives. From what I got reading the reviews it should be a nice improvement. :)
The uDAC-2 has both a DAC and an amp. NuForce.com "As a step beyond the successful uDAC, the uDAC-2 boasts a highly linear TOCOS volume control for improved channel tracking at low listening levels, in addition to 24bit/96kHz USB DAC and an improved headphone amp. "
have you noticed a big difference with the amp? i have the same headphones, which are fantastic, btw.
It hasn't been delivered yet, I'll let you know how it sounds when it arrives. From what I got reading the reviews it should be a nice improvement. :)
more...
cvaldes
Apr 24, 02:14 AM
A few clarifications that pertain to AT&T/T-Mobile and this story:
* The most valuable thing T-Mobile has is it's *spectrum*. The network itself, while quite valuable, isn't the key here at all. Oh, it's a factor, but it's not the reason why the Death Star is after it.
* T-Mobile has not been bought. There's just a stated intent for AT&T to buy T-mobile. The purchase process will take many months, and there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome. Since this will mean reducing the number of national (or near national) carriers, it will get heavy scrutiny, and there's more than a small chance that the deal will be rejected, or come with so many conditions that AT&T will withdraw the offer.
* Between now and the actual purchase, the companies can do some exploratory work with each other but they cannot operate in any way as if the deal has already taken place. AT&T cannot ask APPL to test the iPhone at T-Mobile bands.
There are probably some ways around the last bullet (called "gun jumping") but with a deal with this level of scrutiny, nothing is going to happen which jeopardizes the deal.
T-Mobile USA has spectrum, but also cell towers. AT&T's can benefit from the short term from cell tower access. Spectrum will come later, after an orderly migration of current T-Mobile USA customers using devices that access the AWS band.
It is highly likely that Apple has been testing devices on a variety of carriers, many of them who are unofficial/unannounced. It is likely that this T-Mobile testing unit is such a device.
Lastly, APPL is the stock symbol for Appel Petroleum. The stock symbol for Apple Inc. is AAPL.
Frankly, you shouldn't use stock symbols to talk about a company, unless you are specifically referring to shares. Only dorks do that. It's the same as using an airport code to talk about a city. San Francisco isn't SFO. Los Angeles isn't LAX. Portland isn't PDX. Paris isn't CDG.
* The most valuable thing T-Mobile has is it's *spectrum*. The network itself, while quite valuable, isn't the key here at all. Oh, it's a factor, but it's not the reason why the Death Star is after it.
* T-Mobile has not been bought. There's just a stated intent for AT&T to buy T-mobile. The purchase process will take many months, and there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome. Since this will mean reducing the number of national (or near national) carriers, it will get heavy scrutiny, and there's more than a small chance that the deal will be rejected, or come with so many conditions that AT&T will withdraw the offer.
* Between now and the actual purchase, the companies can do some exploratory work with each other but they cannot operate in any way as if the deal has already taken place. AT&T cannot ask APPL to test the iPhone at T-Mobile bands.
There are probably some ways around the last bullet (called "gun jumping") but with a deal with this level of scrutiny, nothing is going to happen which jeopardizes the deal.
T-Mobile USA has spectrum, but also cell towers. AT&T's can benefit from the short term from cell tower access. Spectrum will come later, after an orderly migration of current T-Mobile USA customers using devices that access the AWS band.
It is highly likely that Apple has been testing devices on a variety of carriers, many of them who are unofficial/unannounced. It is likely that this T-Mobile testing unit is such a device.
Lastly, APPL is the stock symbol for Appel Petroleum. The stock symbol for Apple Inc. is AAPL.
Frankly, you shouldn't use stock symbols to talk about a company, unless you are specifically referring to shares. Only dorks do that. It's the same as using an airport code to talk about a city. San Francisco isn't SFO. Los Angeles isn't LAX. Portland isn't PDX. Paris isn't CDG.
dextertangocci
Jul 11, 02:52 PM
Why the hell does MS even want to attempt to release an "iPod killer"? Do they not realise they will lose money?:rolleyes:
more...
mac.rumors
May 3, 08:29 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Is it confirmed these beauties have SATA III?
Is it confirmed these beauties have SATA III?
RodThePlod
Jul 28, 02:34 PM
Microsoft has waited WAY too long to make any type of impact on the portable music device industry. iPod has been around now for too long, and has too strong of a grip on the marketshare for anyone to try to threaten their hold. This Zune thing will have to have some aspect to it that is totally it's own for anyone to take any notice to it whatsoever.
I just set up a webpage where you can cast your vote for Zune or iPod. Check out www.will-zune-beat-ipod.com
:D
RodC
--
www.expodition.com - for iPod users who love to travel
I just set up a webpage where you can cast your vote for Zune or iPod. Check out www.will-zune-beat-ipod.com
:D
RodC
--
www.expodition.com - for iPod users who love to travel
more...
kiljoy616
Apr 12, 09:34 AM
Oh I forgot...yes...the "Specs" argument. My bad. AND the Closed vs. Open debate. Yes...that too. It's so open that I can't upgrade to the latest Android version, because it's not available for carrier XYZ. But that's not Android's fault, or the Phone's fault. You can root it though. That's awesome...root it, then download the newest launcher, then reset it, and do this, and do that. Then when that's all done, it's no better than it was when I started. But hey, my icons are Green! Cool...
haha, nice :)
haha, nice :)
aegisdesign
Jul 10, 12:52 PM
great news. I'd love to use iwork instead of office which is slow and crashy, but pages just doesn't cut it for me right now. What I'd really love is for pages to have a "notebook" kind of view like word does because that's much more convenient for taking notes in class.
Er, see that TextEdit icon in your dockbar - try that.
Er, see that TextEdit icon in your dockbar - try that.
killuminati
Jul 25, 09:15 AM
First of all, I think this should have been released at most a couple months after the introduction of the Mighty Mouse. Taking a year to give it BT capabilities is ridiculous.
And $70 for a ****ing mouse is absurd. Doesn't look like I'll be buying anymore mice from apple.
And $70 for a ****ing mouse is absurd. Doesn't look like I'll be buying anymore mice from apple.
redAPPLE
Jul 25, 08:41 AM
It's about time. But I've had a wireless mouse/keyboard set when I got my iMac G5 Rev. A back in the day, and I quickly got rid of it. I was sick and tired of changing the damn batteries every few weeks. I never mouse or type away from my desk, so I had no use for it, and I'd rather have the ugly wires than deal with the annoyance of buying/changing batteries often. Now, if they were rechargeable (in a dock, I don't want to have to take them out and put them in a seperate charger), I could see using them.
apple could use firewire cables (like the iPods) to recharge wireless keyboards and mice.
long live firewire.
apple could use firewire cables (like the iPods) to recharge wireless keyboards and mice.
long live firewire.
ghostlyorb
Apr 16, 07:05 AM
I hope this OS is to be bought & downloaded through the App Store and updates come through the generic "software update".
I think it will be on the App Store.. and via a physical disk. I have friends who don't have fast enough internet to even play xboxlive.. and have a high-speed limit of like 500MBs a day. So yeah.
I think it will be on the App Store.. and via a physical disk. I have friends who don't have fast enough internet to even play xboxlive.. and have a high-speed limit of like 500MBs a day. So yeah.
Don't panic
Apr 28, 12:00 PM
he's probably simply engulfed in life™.
the deadline is gone and nies is toast.
hopefully it is a hairy toast, otherwise we have just one more shot, with only 25% of success, before the village is doomed (barring some hunter magic).
the deadline is gone and nies is toast.
hopefully it is a hairy toast, otherwise we have just one more shot, with only 25% of success, before the village is doomed (barring some hunter magic).
longofest
Jul 24, 06:42 PM
gee wiz apple... 1 whole year? frick, and i just bought the logitech wireless desktop...
I have a Logitech Wireless MX 1000, and I love it, and wouldn't trade it for the world, and especially wouldn't trade it for a wireless Mighty Mouse.
A USB Mighty Mouse came with my G5, and I just stick it in my laptop case so I can have a backup mouse so i don't have to use the trackpad when I travel. I figure that's about all its good for when you have a really high-quality mouse like the MX 1000 laying around :-)
I have a Logitech Wireless MX 1000, and I love it, and wouldn't trade it for the world, and especially wouldn't trade it for a wireless Mighty Mouse.
A USB Mighty Mouse came with my G5, and I just stick it in my laptop case so I can have a backup mouse so i don't have to use the trackpad when I travel. I figure that's about all its good for when you have a really high-quality mouse like the MX 1000 laying around :-)
Eriden
Mar 15, 01:06 AM
I'll be heading to Spectrum myself. I've got to pick one up for my wife. She thought she'd be happy with my first gen iPad until she started playing around with my white Verizon 32GB.
Fortunately, for some reason, Spectrum sounds like was much less of a mess than Brea. 2/3 of the people in line on launch day were disappointed.
Fortunately, for some reason, Spectrum sounds like was much less of a mess than Brea. 2/3 of the people in line on launch day were disappointed.
No comments:
Post a Comment