QCassidy352
Jul 12, 02:52 PM
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac. I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
Oh really? Show me where PCs can do 18 billion floating point calculations a second!
Haven't we been over this before?
ezekielrage_99
Aug 29, 11:17 PM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
citizenzen
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
Intelligence has something to do with it.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 12:36 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) Mobile/8G4)
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
too many of those programs are only on pcs
one research scientist my wife works with started coding in dos on the mac compiler and if he succeeded in getting into the server, which would not happen anyway, he would have caused major damage
this phd had no idea that the g4 and the mac os was not dos...he was sure everything was dos like his windows 98 box he and all the other research scientists use
the sas program they have only works on 95 and 98:p
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
too many of those programs are only on pcs
one research scientist my wife works with started coding in dos on the mac compiler and if he succeeded in getting into the server, which would not happen anyway, he would have caused major damage
this phd had no idea that the g4 and the mac os was not dos...he was sure everything was dos like his windows 98 box he and all the other research scientists use
the sas program they have only works on 95 and 98:p
alexeismertin
Aug 29, 12:10 PM
I hate people who are soo stuck up Apples arsehole that rather than accept Apple are poor environmentally, still stick up for a computer company.
It might not affect you, or the people on your street, or your city but somewhere in the world the impact of Apples actions are being felt.
I'll accept its not just Apple but this site is about Apple so lets not compare or excuse to justify Apples actions.
Big profits Big responsibilty
It might not affect you, or the people on your street, or your city but somewhere in the world the impact of Apples actions are being felt.
I'll accept its not just Apple but this site is about Apple so lets not compare or excuse to justify Apples actions.
Big profits Big responsibilty
blastvurt
Apr 10, 11:42 AM
Believe this all you want, when a company like Epic sings the praises of iOS you'd best pay attention. It's had great impact on Nintendo's mobile plans and it terrifies Microsoft (who are praying that Xbox Live on WP7 matters to enough people). When mobile gaming (i.e., on the iPad) is making such inroads into mainstream gaming, it's eventually going to have an effect on the way consumers view mainstream console gaming. In fact, this is guaranteed.
Mobile gaming has been around for years in the form of handheld consoles. Hasn't really affected consoles that you plug into your TV/monitor.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
How is going to blur?
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
The psp slim & lite can output to a TV. Didn't really do much for PSP sales though. What use is it outputting a game from an ipad to the TV when you have limited control input options. The lack of buttons or real inputs will severely limit the types of games devices like the ipad can do.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
I take it you do then :rolleyes:
Mobile gaming has been around for years in the form of handheld consoles. Hasn't really affected consoles that you plug into your TV/monitor.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
How is going to blur?
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
The psp slim & lite can output to a TV. Didn't really do much for PSP sales though. What use is it outputting a game from an ipad to the TV when you have limited control input options. The lack of buttons or real inputs will severely limit the types of games devices like the ipad can do.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
I take it you do then :rolleyes:
pdjudd
Oct 8, 11:30 AM
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
deannnnn
Oct 7, 10:11 PM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
I hope the 4G iPhone is out in time!
I hope the 4G iPhone is out in time!
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:41 PM
I agree with you, brother. God bless you.
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
bedifferent
May 2, 04:18 PM
Bravo, this is the funniest post ever.
I bet there's a lot of fan bois with soiled underwear.
Could it be true? Their perfect computers now quite vulnerable.
Ya gotta love it...the slap of reality :) :) :)
…and in come the Engadget trolls… ;)
Reality check is that I make 75% of my part-time communications and IT work from Windows based systems, fixing errors, virus removal, bloatware, instaling third party software such as mail, photo and calendar apps (Office), configuring their WLAN to work properly, et al.
My OS X work, mostly teaching people how to use OS X (Apple's One on One but without the noise and lack of experience from minimum wage "Creatives"). Funny how the switchers fall in love with OS X and never switch back to Windows.
Not knocking it, I got W7 on one of my 6-Core Mac Pro SATA bays and it runs amazingly. Of course, some of this is due to the hardware and drivers supplied by Apple, making it seamless as opposed to writing code for a myriad of hardware profiles…
Bottom line, both are good, but Windows would be better following Apple's lead in producing the hardware with the product, ensuring less compatibility issue and adopting EFI (Bios? REALLY?). Course this would mean millions of large businesses reinvesting in MS built hardware, and with MS's product quality/industrial design, I'm not betting on it...
I bet there's a lot of fan bois with soiled underwear.
Could it be true? Their perfect computers now quite vulnerable.
Ya gotta love it...the slap of reality :) :) :)
…and in come the Engadget trolls… ;)
Reality check is that I make 75% of my part-time communications and IT work from Windows based systems, fixing errors, virus removal, bloatware, instaling third party software such as mail, photo and calendar apps (Office), configuring their WLAN to work properly, et al.
My OS X work, mostly teaching people how to use OS X (Apple's One on One but without the noise and lack of experience from minimum wage "Creatives"). Funny how the switchers fall in love with OS X and never switch back to Windows.
Not knocking it, I got W7 on one of my 6-Core Mac Pro SATA bays and it runs amazingly. Of course, some of this is due to the hardware and drivers supplied by Apple, making it seamless as opposed to writing code for a myriad of hardware profiles…
Bottom line, both are good, but Windows would be better following Apple's lead in producing the hardware with the product, ensuring less compatibility issue and adopting EFI (Bios? REALLY?). Course this would mean millions of large businesses reinvesting in MS built hardware, and with MS's product quality/industrial design, I'm not betting on it...
Chappers
Mar 11, 04:26 AM
Sadly death toll rises to 29
Having been in a big quake - I know how scary it is and hope that all their preparation helps.
Having been in a big quake - I know how scary it is and hope that all their preparation helps.
Shivetya
Apr 6, 05:15 AM
Things you might find odd.
Very closed environment, limited games unless you bootcamp Windows. By closed I mean, really its not like you can bop down to any store and find software for your Mac (and no, the App store does not cut it).
No Mac product offers true customization like a PC. You get whats in the box and your stuck with it, unless of course you spend the money on a Mac Pro but even then it has many restrictions in what will work and won't. Think Linux with even less choice but at least when your given the choice that item will work.
Apps do not have a menu bar as part of their window. It always is at the top of the screen. This can be annoying at times for those used to positioning applications windows in specific parts of the screen because if need access to that apps menu and don't need the short cut you have to move the mouse to the top of the screen again. Probably the #1 interface dislike I have with OS X.
Apple mice, I know its not an OS thing, but the first thing any self respecting person does is buy a real mouse with the correct number of buttons.
The beach ball.
Very closed environment, limited games unless you bootcamp Windows. By closed I mean, really its not like you can bop down to any store and find software for your Mac (and no, the App store does not cut it).
No Mac product offers true customization like a PC. You get whats in the box and your stuck with it, unless of course you spend the money on a Mac Pro but even then it has many restrictions in what will work and won't. Think Linux with even less choice but at least when your given the choice that item will work.
Apps do not have a menu bar as part of their window. It always is at the top of the screen. This can be annoying at times for those used to positioning applications windows in specific parts of the screen because if need access to that apps menu and don't need the short cut you have to move the mouse to the top of the screen again. Probably the #1 interface dislike I have with OS X.
Apple mice, I know its not an OS thing, but the first thing any self respecting person does is buy a real mouse with the correct number of buttons.
The beach ball.
sblasl
Oct 28, 02:16 PM
OK, so I now know what the potential capabilities of the new machines will have. If I look at the Apple Store and see the 3 current base options & price, when the release occurs, what is the speculation of choices & prices?
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.
Macaroony
Apr 24, 01:34 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 11:27 PM
my guess is it is going to come down to them fillings the chamber with concrete
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 12:44 PM
Priests make the choice to do it. Why should gay people be expected to do it? To make everyone else feel better about it? Why shouldn't heterosexuals abstain then?
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
SolarJ
Apr 6, 09:44 AM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
A way around this is to create shortcuts (make alias) in a new folder of the applications you use most and put the folder in the dock and set the folder to a grid pattern.
Switched almost three years ago! However I still use Parallels to operate windows specific programs.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
A way around this is to create shortcuts (make alias) in a new folder of the applications you use most and put the folder in the dock and set the folder to a grid pattern.
Switched almost three years ago! However I still use Parallels to operate windows specific programs.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:16 PM
Ok, replace "True" for "Orthodox". Mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox. Pretty much believe the same things. You can even throw some non-orthodox sects in there like the Mormons and still have a huge intersect on beliefs, especially on morality.
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
therevolution
Mar 18, 05:08 PM
Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...
why would you pay for something you don't want
To prove a point: DRM is basically useless.
why would you pay for something you don't want
To prove a point: DRM is basically useless.
Mousse
Apr 26, 12:19 PM
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 11:49 PM
Apple didn't skew any numbers. Apple didn't provide these numbers. They had nothing to do with it.
That said, how are the numbers skewed? When counting OS market share do you treat 13" notebooks differently than desktops? Or do you add everything up?
That said, how are the numbers skewed? When counting OS market share do you treat 13" notebooks differently than desktops? Or do you add everything up?
No comments:
Post a Comment