dudemac
Mar 19, 07:51 AM
As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.
MacRumors
Sep 20, 12:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Macsavvytech
May 3, 04:48 PM
Hmmm.
My sister was fooled by this up to the point of it running its "scan". Just had to talk to her about it, seems it targets bootcamp people by seeming to be a message reporting their Windows side is infected (The normal my computer scam screen). Anyway guided her through removing it.
My sister was fooled by this up to the point of it running its "scan". Just had to talk to her about it, seems it targets bootcamp people by seeming to be a message reporting their Windows side is infected (The normal my computer scam screen). Anyway guided her through removing it.
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
QCassidy352
Mar 18, 11:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
No, that's just not true. You signed a contract saying you would only use the data on the phone. You paid for the data with the understanding that it comes with certain contractual restrictions. If you think those restrictions are unfair or arbitrary, you should have signed the contract. In no way shape or form does the contract you signed entitle you to do whatever you want with the data.
It's not a perfect analogy, but compare buying OS 10.6 and installing it on multiple machines with one license. You bought the disc, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. The purchase comes with terms regulating the allowed uses.
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
No, that's just not true. You signed a contract saying you would only use the data on the phone. You paid for the data with the understanding that it comes with certain contractual restrictions. If you think those restrictions are unfair or arbitrary, you should have signed the contract. In no way shape or form does the contract you signed entitle you to do whatever you want with the data.
It's not a perfect analogy, but compare buying OS 10.6 and installing it on multiple machines with one license. You bought the disc, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. The purchase comes with terms regulating the allowed uses.
javajedi
Oct 11, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
Chupa Chupa
Apr 9, 07:07 AM
I'm not sure why this is front page news. Apple is a little late to the game (no pun) here as devs have already made the iPod the new "game boy". But it's not really the hardware that has done this, but rather inexpensive app prices. I hate to see Apple get sidetracked here. They should just continue to focus on innovating and the devs will come out with apps people want at prices parents and kids can afford.
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 11:58 AM
Right, schools should teach you how to think. Besides, what a kid learns at age 7 will be somewhat obsolete by the time she enters the work force at 24, seventeen years later. For all we know, she could be given a Linux box at that time, or a Chrome PC, or a Mac, or something not even invented yet instead of a Windows box.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
bastiangatten
Oct 7, 02:49 PM
Ya if apple didn't further the iPhone OS anymore between now and then maybe. But you know they will come up with something great soon anyways. And I don't think apple is seaking to have the most sold product. They just want to have the best product. Look at the Mac Computer. It isn't the most. It's the best!
Daveoc64
Apr 15, 11:32 AM
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
mytdave
May 2, 11:29 AM
Why does Apple even have the "open safe files after download" option in Safari? If they insist on keeping that "feature" in Safari, the least they could do is have it off by default.
...And this new threat is not a virus. At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
...And this new threat is not a virus. At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
chrono1081
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
I honestly have no idea how you have the job that you do, because you fail tremendously in this aspect.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.
toddybody
Apr 21, 08:41 AM
So why are you here? :confused:
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:32 AM
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
ZenoVT
May 8, 03:41 PM
I live in manhattan and the call failed frequency is soo great that if I'm connected to wifi, you bet I'm using skype to make my calls. I hate when I'm on hold with a company going through those annoying labyrinth of an automated they set up to tie us in a loop, and when i finally get a hold of a representative I get a Call Failed error on my iPhone.
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 07:12 PM
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 12:09 AM
It is nice that some folks here feel they know the "law". Look at the world your "law" has created. Look back in history and review what "law" has allowed humans to do to other humans and our planet.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
But hey, no one should listen to me since I think borders, the military and money should all be abolished ;) They, like DRM, are simply used to divide humans from one another. We need to find ways to come together - not separate. Anything that limits the ability for people to voluntarily come together and create community is bad. DRM is just another example of human frailty and vanity.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else. Hell, 100 years ago your law said women were not smart enough to vote. Heck, in some parts of the world the law still says that.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
But hey, no one should listen to me since I think borders, the military and money should all be abolished ;) They, like DRM, are simply used to divide humans from one another. We need to find ways to come together - not separate. Anything that limits the ability for people to voluntarily come together and create community is bad. DRM is just another example of human frailty and vanity.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else. Hell, 100 years ago your law said women were not smart enough to vote. Heck, in some parts of the world the law still says that.
Mousse
Apr 25, 06:14 PM
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
obeygiant
Apr 25, 01:39 PM
I know that there is no chance whatever that the gods espoused by any religion are anything but contemporary imaginations of forces to be explained or propitiated, either in the natural world or in the psychology of homo sapiens. To claim that any one is real, or more real than any other, is blindly to ignore their obvious common derivation.
That about sums it up for me.
That about sums it up for me.
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
elbirth
Oct 13, 07:29 PM
Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
Just a quick comment about this:
I completely agree that you can get some great deals from Fatwallet forumers. My only problem with quite a number of their deals is that they require you to jump through so many loops to get them- i.e, buy at one store with a coupon via Fatwallet to get some money back via FatCash, then take it to a store to price match, send in 4 rebates, sacrifice a goat, and pray to the deal gods that it all goes through in 6-8 weeks.
dealmac focuses on finding straight-forward deals that don't require a lot of hassle and has at *least* 1 writer and 1 editor investigate any given deal before it gets posted on the front page to ensure that it's valid. Of course mistakes take place and prices change... But I'm not the type to want to try reaching out on a limb to get a good deal and risk breaking my neck (read: my finances). For the people that are willing to do it, more power to you.
Just a quick comment about this:
I completely agree that you can get some great deals from Fatwallet forumers. My only problem with quite a number of their deals is that they require you to jump through so many loops to get them- i.e, buy at one store with a coupon via Fatwallet to get some money back via FatCash, then take it to a store to price match, send in 4 rebates, sacrifice a goat, and pray to the deal gods that it all goes through in 6-8 weeks.
dealmac focuses on finding straight-forward deals that don't require a lot of hassle and has at *least* 1 writer and 1 editor investigate any given deal before it gets posted on the front page to ensure that it's valid. Of course mistakes take place and prices change... But I'm not the type to want to try reaching out on a limb to get a good deal and risk breaking my neck (read: my finances). For the people that are willing to do it, more power to you.
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
storage
Jul 12, 05:22 PM
23" Matteblack Conroe iMac
Matteblack Bluetooth Might Mouse
Matteblack Bluetooth Keyboard
PLEASE :mad:
Matteblack Bluetooth Might Mouse
Matteblack Bluetooth Keyboard
PLEASE :mad: