aohus
Apr 19, 02:35 PM
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
Apple may face special problems because of admissions made by its chairman, John Sculley, in his 1987 book, ''Odyssey,'' a chronicle of his split with Apple's co-founder, Steven P. Jobs. ''Much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' he wrote. ''Indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed'' at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
Apple may face special problems because of admissions made by its chairman, John Sculley, in his 1987 book, ''Odyssey,'' a chronicle of his split with Apple's co-founder, Steven P. Jobs. ''Much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' he wrote. ''Indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed'' at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
rayz
Aug 8, 02:08 AM
From the Apple website...
Backup Disk: Change the drive or volume you�re backing up to. Or back up to a Mac OS X server computer.
Ouch .... :eek:
Backup Disk: Change the drive or volume you�re backing up to. Or back up to a Mac OS X server computer.
Ouch .... :eek:
puuukeey
Sep 13, 12:32 PM
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007US79Y.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
MORE POWER!
MORE POWER!
littleman23408
Dec 3, 07:40 PM
I am excited about the rally, I haven't started that yet. I always loved the dirt and snow races in previous GT games.
Hellhammer
Dec 7, 08:49 AM
Anyone know where to get a fast car? My level isn't enough for the good ones in store (only 21 atm, need 23) but all my opponents have +900hp ~700kg cars so my 840hp Lambo just doesn't cut it anymore. Have around 1.8m cash plus 40 cars so money isn't an issue but I just can't find any :(
kentkomine
Apr 11, 03:42 PM
Aww, I was really hoping/expecting for a summer release :( But with all the other rumors suggesting that WWDC 2011 will be software-oriented, it makes sense. The iPhone 5 better be AWESOME, or else!!
Eraserhead
Mar 23, 01:50 AM
These things don't travel very fast.
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
iliketyla
Mar 31, 02:39 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
From my own personal experience, I know very few people that have Android phones that took advantage of the BOGO deal.
I personally bought this Android phone because I read reviews, and it was the best lower end phone, and I can't justify spending an enormous amount of money on something I'll upgrade in a year.
I used an iPhone 3GS for a year, and I don't miss it.
It's a very nice phone, but the features that I can use on Android more than make up for any advantages the iPhone had.
Once again, this is just MY opinion, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
From my own personal experience, I know very few people that have Android phones that took advantage of the BOGO deal.
I personally bought this Android phone because I read reviews, and it was the best lower end phone, and I can't justify spending an enormous amount of money on something I'll upgrade in a year.
I used an iPhone 3GS for a year, and I don't miss it.
It's a very nice phone, but the features that I can use on Android more than make up for any advantages the iPhone had.
Once again, this is just MY opinion, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
baeder
Jul 15, 01:19 AM
Is it possible that the lower end models (rumored to be single processor) will be upgradeable by BTO or later on by the user by putting in another processor?
~Shard~
Jul 15, 10:49 AM
I disagree. Using ATX power supplies is a stupid idea. I am sure Apple uses higher quality power supplies than you would pick up at your local CompUSA.
If they allow this there will be a lot of dead Macs, from power supplies whose rails aren't strong enough.
Not to mention those who buy the 400W model because it is only 20 bucks and drastically underpower there Mac.
This would cause to many problems. Keep it proprietary IMO.
Actually that is a good point. Another good example is how some people install incorrect RAM into their Mac - they just pick up generic cheapo RAM, not Mac-certified, and wonder why they have all sorts of issues.
If they allow this there will be a lot of dead Macs, from power supplies whose rails aren't strong enough.
Not to mention those who buy the 400W model because it is only 20 bucks and drastically underpower there Mac.
This would cause to many problems. Keep it proprietary IMO.
Actually that is a good point. Another good example is how some people install incorrect RAM into their Mac - they just pick up generic cheapo RAM, not Mac-certified, and wonder why they have all sorts of issues.
chasemac
Aug 7, 05:07 PM
Time Machine won't mean much when the HD fails. Back that azz up!
59031
Aug 7, 06:50 PM
Is Leopard going to take advantage of the 64 bit Dual G5?
Yes, absolutely:
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don’t have to install separate applications for different machines. There’s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don’t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Yes, absolutely:
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don’t have to install separate applications for different machines. There’s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don’t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
MrCrowbar
Jul 20, 06:16 PM
Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.
Hehe, I remember Virginia Tech having built the 3rd fastest supercomputer out of 1100 dual powermacs G5. Back then, the XServe G5 wasn't available. You can see that in the MWSF 2004 keynote (minute 25 ff). They later switched to the Xserve G5 when those came out. It had 10.28 TF for just $5.2M.
Hehe, I remember Virginia Tech having built the 3rd fastest supercomputer out of 1100 dual powermacs G5. Back then, the XServe G5 wasn't available. You can see that in the MWSF 2004 keynote (minute 25 ff). They later switched to the Xserve G5 when those came out. It had 10.28 TF for just $5.2M.
SkyStudios
Apr 25, 04:36 PM
First things first, let Apple pay the fines becuase this is indeed a violation of our privacy, Google and facebook paid ober 300,000 dollars to Europe for it why should Apple not pay the fine?
Lets get to the real deal, Apple was already sued for violating privacy laws last year, they where not only storing location data but collecting users political views which required fallowing personal emails, chats, web history recorded regardless of you cleaning it afterwards with some paid apps.
Its a federal offense to not only tap someones line, stalk them with location recording but sell them a device, if people knew this they would never of purchased the device., let those poeple in Top companies who have FBI protecting them from Espionage SUE APPLE and Android companies too if they violate privacy laws becuase thats info you can topple a company with fast, especially competitors.
As for the naive kids who claim police can use this location data to find a rapists or perpetrator at large your dead wrong kids, here is a list of proceedings which have to be met to do this,
The cops can not at all even look into your phone, etc, unless your dumb enough to give them info, how ever a PI or detective can., cops and everyone else need warrants if they want to use this info legally, anything other then that is a personal decision and violation of someones rights, if cops had access to your phone who knows what issues we would have, they are not trained on legal matters, detectives, PIs, federal agents, Pis and detectives working under a lawyer who does, all going through the district attorneys office can, even journalists who are retired Feds, detectives, Pis or CIA agents can, they know the laws or their work is worthless in court.
Cops can however use police jammers, eves drop on your line through the district attorneys office via the phone company, they can even turn your phone into a video camera if it has one with out software or you knowing this, so can the feds, this all is also useless unless a warrant is issued, if cuaght they lose their license or get fined,
Maybe Apple will just pay the fine and walk away with money they made toppling other companies by spying on their employees. , but one thing is for sure, they HAVE TO CHANGE THIS GAME and also REMOVE KIDS APPS that prey on children to pay for more games with out them even knowing it.
Lets get to the real deal, Apple was already sued for violating privacy laws last year, they where not only storing location data but collecting users political views which required fallowing personal emails, chats, web history recorded regardless of you cleaning it afterwards with some paid apps.
Its a federal offense to not only tap someones line, stalk them with location recording but sell them a device, if people knew this they would never of purchased the device., let those poeple in Top companies who have FBI protecting them from Espionage SUE APPLE and Android companies too if they violate privacy laws becuase thats info you can topple a company with fast, especially competitors.
As for the naive kids who claim police can use this location data to find a rapists or perpetrator at large your dead wrong kids, here is a list of proceedings which have to be met to do this,
The cops can not at all even look into your phone, etc, unless your dumb enough to give them info, how ever a PI or detective can., cops and everyone else need warrants if they want to use this info legally, anything other then that is a personal decision and violation of someones rights, if cops had access to your phone who knows what issues we would have, they are not trained on legal matters, detectives, PIs, federal agents, Pis and detectives working under a lawyer who does, all going through the district attorneys office can, even journalists who are retired Feds, detectives, Pis or CIA agents can, they know the laws or their work is worthless in court.
Cops can however use police jammers, eves drop on your line through the district attorneys office via the phone company, they can even turn your phone into a video camera if it has one with out software or you knowing this, so can the feds, this all is also useless unless a warrant is issued, if cuaght they lose their license or get fined,
Maybe Apple will just pay the fine and walk away with money they made toppling other companies by spying on their employees. , but one thing is for sure, they HAVE TO CHANGE THIS GAME and also REMOVE KIDS APPS that prey on children to pay for more games with out them even knowing it.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 09:17 AM
I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
ryanx27
Aug 27, 04:15 PM
It's not that people didn't understand the joke. It's that the joke ceased being funny after the first couple of hundreds of times it was told.
-Zadillo
I'm not on these forums (or any other, for that matter) nearly enough to have seen it hundreds of times :)
-Zadillo
I'm not on these forums (or any other, for that matter) nearly enough to have seen it hundreds of times :)
robbyx
Apr 25, 04:29 PM
Normally I would argue that the customer doesn't have a right to a lot of things. But in this case - if you bought a device and it is tracking you (I'm not saying it is or it isn't) - the customer does have a right to know.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Where does these RIGHTS you speak of come from? Frankly, I don't know if it's a right or not, but I hear the word "right" used a lot these days by people who have no idea what it means.
Much ado about nothing.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Where does these RIGHTS you speak of come from? Frankly, I don't know if it's a right or not, but I hear the word "right" used a lot these days by people who have no idea what it means.
Much ado about nothing.
cyberdogl2
Aug 27, 05:20 PM
I see where you're coming from.
So does this mean there will be no Powerbook G5s next tuesday?
So does this mean there will be no Powerbook G5s next tuesday?
leekohler
Feb 28, 09:45 PM
Correct I have no idea what causes homosexuality, neither do scientists.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
iGary
Aug 5, 05:15 PM
iMac - No.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
twoodcc
Sep 19, 12:18 AM
well i hope that this happens....and that they make more changes with the MBP
generik
Jul 29, 09:29 AM
this would be smart because as of right now the mac book pro doesnt WOW me over the macbook. Do you think the "core 3" will also have the same pin structure as the 2's?
Not a chance in hell, give up the idea of upgrading your Mac already :rolleyes:
The newer Meroms that are to come out Q2 2007 will be based off a completely new socket.
Not a chance in hell, give up the idea of upgrading your Mac already :rolleyes:
The newer Meroms that are to come out Q2 2007 will be based off a completely new socket.
shrimpdesign
Aug 7, 03:19 PM
Features I want:
-iChat screen sharing (awesome idea!) and video effects
-Spaces (finally a Apple OS-level implementation)
-Time Machine (I want a friggin wormhole on my computer!)
I wish they'd show us the Top Secret features.
But seriously, so one even saw Time Machine coming. That was a surprise!
-iChat screen sharing (awesome idea!) and video effects
-Spaces (finally a Apple OS-level implementation)
-Time Machine (I want a friggin wormhole on my computer!)
I wish they'd show us the Top Secret features.
But seriously, so one even saw Time Machine coming. That was a surprise!
Xian Zhu Xuande
Mar 31, 03:02 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Except... he's right. This was a bait-and-switch from Google. I don't think it was a bad move for the future of the platform, but it does render a lot of their PR commentary through history as bogus. As for Gruber, you clearly don't like him, but while he is certainly a fan of Apple he is usually correct.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Except... he's right. This was a bait-and-switch from Google. I don't think it was a bad move for the future of the platform, but it does render a lot of their PR commentary through history as bogus. As for Gruber, you clearly don't like him, but while he is certainly a fan of Apple he is usually correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment