sam8940
Apr 6, 03:57 PM
what about the hacked nooks?
richard.mac
Mar 26, 11:34 PM
anyone heard of a date (even some unconfirmed rumour) that Lion will see a dev/RC update?
ImAlwaysRight
Sep 13, 09:01 AM
Great news. I can't afford nor do I need that much power, but great to see it can be done.
PCClone
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
I haven't read this lawsuit, so I don't know if they're claiming things that aren't true... but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
DeathChill
Mar 31, 10:55 PM
iPhone is sold as buy-one-get-one-free? In what country would that be?
Narnia.
Narnia.
8CoreWhore
Mar 22, 02:55 PM
Why do they call their tablet a "book". Just stupid.
e-coli
Mar 26, 01:08 PM
Am I the only person not particularly thrilled with Lion?
Airdrop is nice, other than that it seems a bit awkward.
Airdrop is nice, other than that it seems a bit awkward.
SiliconAddict
Aug 6, 03:06 AM
I'm hoping for a major bombshell of an announcement when it comes to Leopard. I've said it before and I will say it again - the gap between Windows and OS X will narrow with Vista. Yes we are all aware that Vista in all likelihood is going to be just as buggy as 10.0 when it was released. But keep in mind that this will probably be the last version of OS X to be released for the next 18+ months. (When its all said and done its prob going to be close to 2 years with 10.4->10.5) That time frame is more then enough time for MS to release SP1 and SP2 which WILL happen once its released, the general public (a.k.a Beta testers.) get their hands on it, and MS starts getting those crash reports.
Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.
We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.
PS- Please Apple; FTFF.
Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.
We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.
PS- Please Apple; FTFF.
obeygiant
Mar 17, 01:03 PM
Obeygiant, you have a way of distilling issues down to their core. The funny thing is, I don't think Lee even realizes he's doing it.
Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list. lol
Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list. lol
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:21 PM
if anyone knows how to change architectures its Apple. we all know they've got OS X running on an iPad already it the labs.
iOS is Mac OS X, just for ARM-processors and optimized for the platform.
iOS is Mac OS X, just for ARM-processors and optimized for the platform.
TheQuestion
Mar 26, 12:22 AM
Can't believe it's anywhere near GM time. Way too many bugs and inconsistencies in behavior. New networking tools in Server have to be implemented now that SMB is being canned - that's not a minor addition. Calling it a release candidate is a stretch, but calling it GM is just plain crazy.
torbjoern
Mar 1, 04:18 PM
But they are treated equal, any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian woman can marry a man just as any heterosexual man can marry a woman and any heterosexual woman can marry a man
He he, I simply love this. How come I have never thought of it myself? So simple yet brilliant at the same time! (-:
He he, I simply love this. How come I have never thought of it myself? So simple yet brilliant at the same time! (-:
CFreymarc
Apr 6, 04:18 PM
Oh yeah, well just wait until people find out iOS is a closed system and the Xoom uses Android which is open....
oh nevermind :D
"Hey babe, I just relinked the kernal of my tablet." is a line that really doesn't work.
"My girl, pet this." (iFur app runs on iPad) Yup iPads get you laid.
oh nevermind :D
"Hey babe, I just relinked the kernal of my tablet." is a line that really doesn't work.
"My girl, pet this." (iFur app runs on iPad) Yup iPads get you laid.
swingerofbirch
Aug 27, 02:29 AM
What do you guys think the new iMac specs will be like?
Let's say on the 17" iMac maybe a 250 gig hard disk, 1 gb ram, upgraded video card, and conroe at some speed who cares what for $1299? Sounds sweet but not outrageously impossible.
Let's say on the 17" iMac maybe a 250 gig hard disk, 1 gb ram, upgraded video card, and conroe at some speed who cares what for $1299? Sounds sweet but not outrageously impossible.
NT1440
Mar 23, 08:38 AM
. Wow, completely clicked on the wrong tab.....
pkson
Apr 19, 05:41 PM
After reading some of the lawsuit, I had to post this..
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2010-11-04_174623.jpg
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pn_20101104170853.jpg
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/2010/11/galaxy-tab-released/
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2010-11-04_174623.jpg
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pn_20101104170853.jpg
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/2010/11/galaxy-tab-released/
Lone Deranger
Mar 26, 09:43 AM
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
You say that as if that's a bad thing. NT≠Unix. :)
You say that as if that's a bad thing. NT≠Unix. :)
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:46 PM
Great argument, except that OK Go are signed to a major label, Capitol Records, only one of the most histroically great labels!! Please see: The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, etc.)! :rolleyes: YouTube doesn't sell music; just look at OK Go's numbers, they are mediocre at best. One hugely popular viral video is not going to move that many CDs.
Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."
Those bands became what they are in different times my friend.
And sorry about the recording studios thing, I am not a native english speaker.
Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."
Those bands became what they are in different times my friend.
And sorry about the recording studios thing, I am not a native english speaker.
skunk
Mar 24, 01:43 PM
Bringing race into this discussion is going nowhere except downhill. All dogs are four-legged animals, but not all four-legged animals are dogs.
cmaier
Apr 19, 06:16 PM
After reading some of the lawsuit, I had to post this..
Proof that Samsung ripped off Apple's rip off of Delicious Library?
Proof that Samsung ripped off Apple's rip off of Delicious Library?
Bigdaddyguido
Mar 22, 05:17 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
If your still looking at specs on tablets you don't understand the market well enough to call anything. Of the 15 million people who purchased an iPad 1, how many do you think could tell you how much ram was in the system?
Until a company has a viably competitive app store with applications even approaching the quality if GarageBand, this is beyond a ridiculous statement to make.
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
If your still looking at specs on tablets you don't understand the market well enough to call anything. Of the 15 million people who purchased an iPad 1, how many do you think could tell you how much ram was in the system?
Until a company has a viably competitive app store with applications even approaching the quality if GarageBand, this is beyond a ridiculous statement to make.
arkitect
Mar 3, 04:52 AM
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate.
Why?
I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex
Why?
Yes, I know you "explain", but I just never get it.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
Last year I (male) married my partner (male) — we've been together 11 years. (As an aside, that 11 year relationship has outlasted all — and I mean all my straight cousins's marriages and relationships).
Now, you may not like to hear this, but when we have sex we make love. I do not see him as just an object. I fell in love with him because he is a wonderful man. He makes me happy and content.
No different from other couples straight or gay.
So why should we suddenly live together in a platonic relationship — because you have issues with sex?
We're pretty middle class (Shock *gasp* horror). We look out for our neighbours, our friends come around for dinner and sometimes they bring their little kids along. Listen to music and nod off in front of the TV. We have sex, sorry to freak you out, but we do.
In all respects we are normal adults contributing to society, paying taxes, recycling our (maybe too many) wine bottles etc.
Look I am sorry life apparently dealt you a few nasty cards, but perhaps you should consider a religious retreat — life in a monastery can be I hear very fulfilling for men and women like you.
But please leave the rest of us to deal with 21st century issues.
And as for your two gay friends… well… I don't know if I wouldn't file them under I for imaginary. That is just my gut instinct. (Unless the couple you refer to are Catholic priests, in which case… I guess.)
Why?
I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex
Why?
Yes, I know you "explain", but I just never get it.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
Last year I (male) married my partner (male) — we've been together 11 years. (As an aside, that 11 year relationship has outlasted all — and I mean all my straight cousins's marriages and relationships).
Now, you may not like to hear this, but when we have sex we make love. I do not see him as just an object. I fell in love with him because he is a wonderful man. He makes me happy and content.
No different from other couples straight or gay.
So why should we suddenly live together in a platonic relationship — because you have issues with sex?
We're pretty middle class (Shock *gasp* horror). We look out for our neighbours, our friends come around for dinner and sometimes they bring their little kids along. Listen to music and nod off in front of the TV. We have sex, sorry to freak you out, but we do.
In all respects we are normal adults contributing to society, paying taxes, recycling our (maybe too many) wine bottles etc.
Look I am sorry life apparently dealt you a few nasty cards, but perhaps you should consider a religious retreat — life in a monastery can be I hear very fulfilling for men and women like you.
But please leave the rest of us to deal with 21st century issues.
And as for your two gay friends… well… I don't know if I wouldn't file them under I for imaginary. That is just my gut instinct. (Unless the couple you refer to are Catholic priests, in which case… I guess.)
layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment