Le Big Mac
Apr 27, 08:27 AM
And here I thought that data wasn't sent to Apple? At least they encrypted it so that you can't tell what actually is sent.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
SuperCachetes
Mar 22, 06:53 PM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
Here's a little fun little nugget for those who say "Obama's just Bush all over again."
UN Resolution 1441 (2002) was drafted by the US and UK, and presented at the UN by Bush.
UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was drafted by France, Lebanon, and the UK, and not presented by the US.
Like you, I would rather us not be involved at all - but we hardly have quite the same hand in this latest business as we did when we went WMD-hunting...
Here's a little fun little nugget for those who say "Obama's just Bush all over again."
UN Resolution 1441 (2002) was drafted by the US and UK, and presented at the UN by Bush.
UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was drafted by France, Lebanon, and the UK, and not presented by the US.
Like you, I would rather us not be involved at all - but we hardly have quite the same hand in this latest business as we did when we went WMD-hunting...
ergle2
Sep 15, 01:08 PM
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
mediasorcerer
Mar 31, 10:41 PM
Whether they're right to start regulating or not, they're still shamless hypocrites. What happened to all the principles that they waved around in the air? Andy Rubin himself said that the "definition of open" was that anyone could download the Android source and do whatever they wanted to it. Now people have to kiss his ring?
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
it is hypocrisy,and its to be expected from google too,lets face it,they are the data miners right hand man,they went around stealing peoples wifi details recently,and were caught,what sort of a company does that i ask you?thieving personal info!!!!
ive never heard of apple doing that.
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
it is hypocrisy,and its to be expected from google too,lets face it,they are the data miners right hand man,they went around stealing peoples wifi details recently,and were caught,what sort of a company does that i ask you?thieving personal info!!!!
ive never heard of apple doing that.
alex2792
Mar 25, 11:41 PM
Apple better integrate the airdrop functionality into iOS 5 as well.
agmaster
Apr 25, 03:35 PM
Wow, more people just trying to get money out of a successful company. Almost every phone tracks your location no matter what brand it is. I don't have an iPhone but there must be an option to turn off location tracking, but even if you did many great Apps out there wouldn't work if you did turn off location tracking.
citizenzen
Apr 28, 10:08 AM
Imagine that, three responses which utterly fail to refute let alone dispute my clear and truthful argument.
Here 5P. Let me try to explain this in a (hopefully) clear and truthful manner.
Tribalism works on a variety of levels. You don't care about conservative blacks because your shared conservative ideology overcomes any racial issues. The fact that you feel a kinship, based on the political ties can even fool you into thinking that you've become color blind. "I like Colin Powell, that proves I'm not a racist."
But when the overriding political connection doesn't exist then the subtler identifiers come into play. The tensions over race, religion, class or gender are always there, they're just overcome by political kinship. Take away that basis for agreement and those other aspects are more prone to color our perception of that person.
Here 5P. Let me try to explain this in a (hopefully) clear and truthful manner.
Tribalism works on a variety of levels. You don't care about conservative blacks because your shared conservative ideology overcomes any racial issues. The fact that you feel a kinship, based on the political ties can even fool you into thinking that you've become color blind. "I like Colin Powell, that proves I'm not a racist."
But when the overriding political connection doesn't exist then the subtler identifiers come into play. The tensions over race, religion, class or gender are always there, they're just overcome by political kinship. Take away that basis for agreement and those other aspects are more prone to color our perception of that person.
daver969
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
Dan==
Jul 27, 04:06 PM
But its like ATI simply naming one of their chips ATI Radeon with no additional naming (being something like X1800 etc.). Why not something like Mac Plus, Mac Extra, Mac Express... I could go on.
Those are all fine.
Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?
Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.
Those are all fine.
Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?
Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.
Astro7x
Apr 10, 09:29 PM
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
I went to a FCPUG meeting where Adobe demoed CS5 right when it was coming out. It was nice being able to see the software in use and ask somebody questions. Not everbody is an Apple fanboy.
It needs to come with a 27 inch multi-touch surface to use as the primary work surface, with my current 27 inch monitor as the head-up dual-monitor (input-output-view).
This is long overdue. If apple won't make it, AVID should. ASAP! :)
And for all us professionals, price is not an issue. We want it to be expensive, and so nice that people will rent out facilities.
Bring it on Apple!
This would be the perfect gifts for the pro-world, after helping you back from bankruptcy, remember dear Apple?
Best,
Jon M.
Hahahahaha... prepare for disappointment.
Aww, give them a break, they're probably just trying to keep with the 90's design of the UI. :D
Honestly, the website totally sucks. Looks like a get-rich-quick advertisement site. They might be FCP pros, but they know amateur HTML.
To be honest, the majority of the people that attend the local FCPUG meetings I go to are old school editors that do just that, edit. I'd also say that the demographic skews more towards freelancers.
I went to a FCPUG meeting where Adobe demoed CS5 right when it was coming out. It was nice being able to see the software in use and ask somebody questions. Not everbody is an Apple fanboy.
It needs to come with a 27 inch multi-touch surface to use as the primary work surface, with my current 27 inch monitor as the head-up dual-monitor (input-output-view).
This is long overdue. If apple won't make it, AVID should. ASAP! :)
And for all us professionals, price is not an issue. We want it to be expensive, and so nice that people will rent out facilities.
Bring it on Apple!
This would be the perfect gifts for the pro-world, after helping you back from bankruptcy, remember dear Apple?
Best,
Jon M.
Hahahahaha... prepare for disappointment.
Aww, give them a break, they're probably just trying to keep with the 90's design of the UI. :D
Honestly, the website totally sucks. Looks like a get-rich-quick advertisement site. They might be FCP pros, but they know amateur HTML.
To be honest, the majority of the people that attend the local FCPUG meetings I go to are old school editors that do just that, edit. I'd also say that the demographic skews more towards freelancers.
kas23
Apr 10, 07:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened...if they were dealing with the Apple of 5 years ago. But, no, we now see today's Apple in action. The same Apple that stole that hot chick's iAd app idea, the same that "asked" Toyota to remove the Scion ad from Cydia, the same that sent out their own ninja's to search some dude's house for the iPhone 4 prototype, etc.
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened...if they were dealing with the Apple of 5 years ago. But, no, we now see today's Apple in action. The same Apple that stole that hot chick's iAd app idea, the same that "asked" Toyota to remove the Scion ad from Cydia, the same that sent out their own ninja's to search some dude's house for the iPhone 4 prototype, etc.
kirk26
Apr 6, 02:34 PM
I'm voting this positive only because this is such a low number and Apple is winning.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 8, 12:30 AM
...or in photo mode which you use a few times and then never look do it again.
I disagree. I've played a good deal of GT5 now at a friend's place. The game itself is not very good, in my opinion, especially after 6 years waiting. But the Photo Mode is VERY excellent. There is at least one thing this game does very well, and that is screenshots. I'm not spending $60 for a screenshot generator, but the feature is quite awesome.
Bad Physics in damage- Forza's canned animation damage is better?
At least in Forza you don't have to "Unlock" the damage. ;)
I disagree. I've played a good deal of GT5 now at a friend's place. The game itself is not very good, in my opinion, especially after 6 years waiting. But the Photo Mode is VERY excellent. There is at least one thing this game does very well, and that is screenshots. I'm not spending $60 for a screenshot generator, but the feature is quite awesome.
Bad Physics in damage- Forza's canned animation damage is better?
At least in Forza you don't have to "Unlock" the damage. ;)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 7, 07:21 AM
I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).
bigmc6000
Aug 12, 12:11 AM
Is Europe not a way bigger mobile phone market than the US anyway. I don't see why any technology company would alienate a huge sector of its market in this way. It will definitely be released in Europe too.
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
Signed,
Stevie J ;)
Well if it's only going to be GSM, not a flip or slide phone you might as well not even release it in the US. Just ask Cingular how amazing the Slvr has done.
Another thing you are assuming is that Apple considers Europe a major player of it's market. It's a chunk that's for sure but how many TV shows does Europe have on their iTunes?
If it's a candy-bar phone I won't buy it. If I have to sacrifice coverage in the US just so I can use it on the very very very rare occasion I head to Europe (along with changing my plan to allow for overseas calls) I won't buy it either. I really think it'd be a bad idea to do all of that. But than again they did make the newton...
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
Signed,
Stevie J ;)
Well if it's only going to be GSM, not a flip or slide phone you might as well not even release it in the US. Just ask Cingular how amazing the Slvr has done.
Another thing you are assuming is that Apple considers Europe a major player of it's market. It's a chunk that's for sure but how many TV shows does Europe have on their iTunes?
If it's a candy-bar phone I won't buy it. If I have to sacrifice coverage in the US just so I can use it on the very very very rare occasion I head to Europe (along with changing my plan to allow for overseas calls) I won't buy it either. I really think it'd be a bad idea to do all of that. But than again they did make the newton...
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
iMikeT
Aug 17, 03:28 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:
Amazing Iceman
Mar 31, 05:05 PM
Well, I guess the Open Source concept backfired at Google and everyone else doing Android. Open Source is a great concept, but when handled the wrong way, it does lead to fragmentation.
The problem is that all the happiness about Android being an open system will now turn into disappointment to many hobbyists and tweakers, and also to developers.
The fact that Apple keeps iOS closed is for a good reason, but at least it created a system to be able to advertise and sell apps. The quality control may not be perfect, but at least so far we haven't heard of an iOS viral app. iOS devices are very tight, protecting their own integrity.
Well, let's see what happens. We need Android to keep poking on Apple's creativity to make better products.
I'm not against Android; I may get an Android phone when I see one worth my money.
The problem is that all the happiness about Android being an open system will now turn into disappointment to many hobbyists and tweakers, and also to developers.
The fact that Apple keeps iOS closed is for a good reason, but at least it created a system to be able to advertise and sell apps. The quality control may not be perfect, but at least so far we haven't heard of an iOS viral app. iOS devices are very tight, protecting their own integrity.
Well, let's see what happens. We need Android to keep poking on Apple's creativity to make better products.
I'm not against Android; I may get an Android phone when I see one worth my money.
Sodner
Apr 8, 07:37 AM
It keeps people coming back day after day.
Yep. And maybe a little... "We don't have the iPad 2 in but let me show you this Xoom we do have in stock." Unknowing Mom or Pop fall for it.
Ta-Da! Manager meets Xoom sell totals and iPad 2's as well.
Yep. And maybe a little... "We don't have the iPad 2 in but let me show you this Xoom we do have in stock." Unknowing Mom or Pop fall for it.
Ta-Da! Manager meets Xoom sell totals and iPad 2's as well.
john123
Sep 19, 08:59 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
Luis Ortega
Apr 6, 02:59 PM
Really? Are sales numbers what dictates one product is better than the other?
I'm not saying the Xoom is better (I haven't used one) but a reading of the posts on this thread would suggest that sales number indicate that one product is better than the other.
In that case, Windows is obviously the best OS on the planet, by a magnitude of 10.
I'm not saying the Xoom is better (I haven't used one) but a reading of the posts on this thread would suggest that sales number indicate that one product is better than the other.
In that case, Windows is obviously the best OS on the planet, by a magnitude of 10.
Vulpinemac
Apr 19, 09:07 PM
Yes. People here are failing to understand the difference between traditional patents that we usually hear about here, and design patents. I believe what Apple is suing over is infringed design patents. That the Galaxy S has a icon grid method for selecting applications is irrelevant in that case. They tried to copy the general design and likeness of the iPhone, which is against the design patents.
Also, whoever it was arguing it previously... Let's not trot out the whole "Apple lost the 'look and feel' argument against Microsoft" thing. That was a different case. Design patents still get filed and granted all the time. This is a new case.
To clarify even farther, the Microsoft "look and feel" lawsuit was a Breach of Copyright suit that Apple lost, not a patent suit. Apple took to patenting their 'look and feel' in order to have a more solid foundation to base future lawsuits.
Also, whoever it was arguing it previously... Let's not trot out the whole "Apple lost the 'look and feel' argument against Microsoft" thing. That was a different case. Design patents still get filed and granted all the time. This is a new case.
To clarify even farther, the Microsoft "look and feel" lawsuit was a Breach of Copyright suit that Apple lost, not a patent suit. Apple took to patenting their 'look and feel' in order to have a more solid foundation to base future lawsuits.
waldobushman
Mar 26, 04:40 PM
It's this mentality that makes me smile.
Without knowing any of the details as to what the final shipping version will be, mezmerized (hypnotized ?) by Apple, enthusiasts are ready to pay whatever Apple demands for the product.
I get to sit back without any effort, and watch with delight as they pour the money into Apples coffers. In turn, my vast amount of Apple stock climbs higher & higher as they brag about Apples Billions.
Their blind trust pays me well. Thanks Apple !
Of course one should upgrade to the next OS X release. Apple makes substantial changes in each major release; if not functionally, then in refactoring code for future enhancements. I'll wait until it is known to be stable, and know that the software I use will run under the new version.
Apple is not MS. I stayed with Windows XP until Windows 7 was reasonably stable. The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware. Not likely to happen with Lion.
Without knowing any of the details as to what the final shipping version will be, mezmerized (hypnotized ?) by Apple, enthusiasts are ready to pay whatever Apple demands for the product.
I get to sit back without any effort, and watch with delight as they pour the money into Apples coffers. In turn, my vast amount of Apple stock climbs higher & higher as they brag about Apples Billions.
Their blind trust pays me well. Thanks Apple !
Of course one should upgrade to the next OS X release. Apple makes substantial changes in each major release; if not functionally, then in refactoring code for future enhancements. I'll wait until it is known to be stable, and know that the software I use will run under the new version.
Apple is not MS. I stayed with Windows XP until Windows 7 was reasonably stable. The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware. Not likely to happen with Lion.
spicyapple
Sep 12, 11:05 AM
I was going to buy the quad-core Mac Pro 3.0 GHz when it hit the mid-price point, but I think I'll wait out for the dual quad-core (8 core) Mac Pro, instead. :) Hopefully by then, FB-DIMM will be cheap enough to buy 8 GB worth of RAM without breaking the bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment