Tomaz
Aug 7, 04:20 PM
I wouldn't say this was copying. A way to backup and restore your files is just common sense. Even if Microsoft didn't have a restore feature, Apple would have come up with it anyway.
If Apple had had that feature for years and MS would include it into Vista now, you'd call it copying, no !? ;)
If Apple had had that feature for years and MS would include it into Vista now, you'd call it copying, no !? ;)
Zazaban
Aug 7, 08:42 PM
all the pictures i've seen of leopard show a unified interface :D
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 02:00 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Westside guy
Aug 7, 03:50 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
Time machine isn't even similar to MS's System Restore. Time Machine is basically like having CVS or Subversion underneath the file system. It rocks. I don't believe there's ever been anything like it on a client-type computer (a similar feature was present in the server OS VMS, I believe).
You might want to do some reading about CVS and Subversion.
Edit: Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be surprising to find that CVS/Subversion code is the foundation for Time Machine.
Time machine isn't even similar to MS's System Restore. Time Machine is basically like having CVS or Subversion underneath the file system. It rocks. I don't believe there's ever been anything like it on a client-type computer (a similar feature was present in the server OS VMS, I believe).
You might want to do some reading about CVS and Subversion.
Edit: Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be surprising to find that CVS/Subversion code is the foundation for Time Machine.
0815
Mar 31, 04:16 PM
Interesting ... I was always told by Android Fans that the system is so "open" and not "fragmented" ... hmmm ... looks like google disagrees and admits it is fragmented and that 'closed' is better :D
Super Dave
Aug 6, 01:29 PM
Mac OS X Leopard
Introducing Vista 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241438&size=l
:D
B
Is that Vista 2.0 thing real? I hadn't seen it before.
David :cool:
Introducing Vista 2.0
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241438&size=l
:D
B
Is that Vista 2.0 thing real? I hadn't seen it before.
David :cool:
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 03:41 PM
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that isn't the point the guy I quoted was making. He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing. (Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that isn't the point the guy I quoted was making. He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing. (Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
Mattie Num Nums
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
How could you not see this coming. Even the most active anti-apple android fanboy/cheerleader could see that eventually it wouldn't work. Too many cooks in 'teh' kitchen trying to one up the competition whilst ruining the experience for the user.
I think everyone saw it. The question is what will Google do when they do publish the source code? All of these people pointing and laughing didn't read the article.
At least, that's what the Fandroids wanted us to believe when Android fragmentation started being tossed around as a problem. Where are those guys now that Google is actually acknowledging that it's a problem? :eek:
Not a problem for me. HTC does a great job keeping phones updated.
I think everyone saw it. The question is what will Google do when they do publish the source code? All of these people pointing and laughing didn't read the article.
At least, that's what the Fandroids wanted us to believe when Android fragmentation started being tossed around as a problem. Where are those guys now that Google is actually acknowledging that it's a problem? :eek:
Not a problem for me. HTC does a great job keeping phones updated.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
RebootD
Apr 10, 01:29 AM
Enough Nostradamusesque mysticism and lets get to the real demo already! (Impatient) :D
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 12:14 PM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
idunn
Apr 6, 07:10 PM
'With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well.'
- per 'Macrumors'
;) Apple could impress the hell out of me by not only upping the CPU horsepower of the new MacBook Air line, but in not downgrading graphic performance, such as the 13" MBP suffered. What is it about the term 'good enough' that sticks in my craw when describing an Apple product, which is supposedly a superior product, and certainly is in price?
While at it, by way of actual 'improvements,' how about the option of the MBA in black?
- per 'Macrumors'
;) Apple could impress the hell out of me by not only upping the CPU horsepower of the new MacBook Air line, but in not downgrading graphic performance, such as the 13" MBP suffered. What is it about the term 'good enough' that sticks in my craw when describing an Apple product, which is supposedly a superior product, and certainly is in price?
While at it, by way of actual 'improvements,' how about the option of the MBA in black?
samcraig
Apr 25, 04:06 PM
1. the lawsuit may have merit HOWEVER - the restitution being sought is silly because I am sure that the two people suing could have or still could return their devices for a refund or store credit.
2. If this was a suit brought up against Google for the same thing - those defending Apple would be ripping Google (or anyone else) a new one. But clearly because it's Apple being targeted it's a witch hunt?
3.the iPhone 4 had an antenna issue. Steve flat out said so. He said that ALL phones have an issue. That doesn't negate the iPhone having one. Oh - but this was LONG after his email to me (and others) that there was NO issue. Backpeddled on that one only after Consumer Reports refused to give the iPhone a good review. Suddenly there was a press conference and finger pointing (poorly) at every other phone manufacturer
I suspect the same will happen here. Apple will be in the cross hairs. Justifiably or not. And when push comes to shove - they will throw anyone and everyone under the bus (ATT, Google, etc) for doing the same thing.
2. If this was a suit brought up against Google for the same thing - those defending Apple would be ripping Google (or anyone else) a new one. But clearly because it's Apple being targeted it's a witch hunt?
3.the iPhone 4 had an antenna issue. Steve flat out said so. He said that ALL phones have an issue. That doesn't negate the iPhone having one. Oh - but this was LONG after his email to me (and others) that there was NO issue. Backpeddled on that one only after Consumer Reports refused to give the iPhone a good review. Suddenly there was a press conference and finger pointing (poorly) at every other phone manufacturer
I suspect the same will happen here. Apple will be in the cross hairs. Justifiably or not. And when push comes to shove - they will throw anyone and everyone under the bus (ATT, Google, etc) for doing the same thing.
axual
Apr 7, 10:54 PM
I had called BB multiple times (6 times over two weeks), each time resulting in the answer that they were sold out. They had a reservation list however.
So, I walked into Best Buy just to look at the iPad 2. As I was discussing this, the BB rep said they had one which had been returned that was up at Customer Service desk. After checking, the Manager got involved because they wanted to make sure the SIM card had not been activated.
At the same time, unbeknownst to my discussion, some guy who had called earlier was told by the Customer Service desk a returned unit was there and he could have it. When I went up with the manager to check it, the other guy was there and expecting the returned unit to purchase.
So bottom line, I actually ended up not with the returned unit, but with a brand new iPad after the manager who didn't really want to deal with the other guy, said he had a new one because that the 48 hour window for a reservation holder had expired.
So my take: BB probably had more iPads than they said they did. I also wonder if the 48 hour reservation hold window was something Apple was aware of.
So, I walked into Best Buy just to look at the iPad 2. As I was discussing this, the BB rep said they had one which had been returned that was up at Customer Service desk. After checking, the Manager got involved because they wanted to make sure the SIM card had not been activated.
At the same time, unbeknownst to my discussion, some guy who had called earlier was told by the Customer Service desk a returned unit was there and he could have it. When I went up with the manager to check it, the other guy was there and expecting the returned unit to purchase.
So bottom line, I actually ended up not with the returned unit, but with a brand new iPad after the manager who didn't really want to deal with the other guy, said he had a new one because that the 48 hour window for a reservation holder had expired.
So my take: BB probably had more iPads than they said they did. I also wonder if the 48 hour reservation hold window was something Apple was aware of.
deconai
Aug 11, 03:48 PM
No, not EVERYONE. I own 4 cell phones. By your logic, I would be counted as 4 people.
I suppose you would be by the cell company.
I suppose you would be by the cell company.
gauriemma
Aug 26, 08:12 AM
No, because different versions of the ranges were initially posted only recently has it been clarified...get with the program and stop trying to be a smartass
Get with what program? I went to the support site on the day the recall was announced, checked to see if my serial number was in the range, it wasn't, and I went on with my life. Just to be safe, I even checked back a couple days later, and the ranges were still the same as the first time I checked.
I had to do the same thing wheh I was checking out our Dell laptops at the office. It's really not that difficult a concept. I think some people just like to have something to complain about.
Get with what program? I went to the support site on the day the recall was announced, checked to see if my serial number was in the range, it wasn't, and I went on with my life. Just to be safe, I even checked back a couple days later, and the ranges were still the same as the first time I checked.
I had to do the same thing wheh I was checking out our Dell laptops at the office. It's really not that difficult a concept. I think some people just like to have something to complain about.
puckhead193
Aug 26, 09:57 PM
god i hope new iMacs are coming out on tues. My butt will be at an apple store placing the order in 5 seconds... well not literally i'll wait till the weekend, but still.... i want an iMac...the mac pro is way to big for my college dorm (i think)
princealfie
Nov 29, 01:21 AM
******* Universal. May the b****** lose foreva.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 10, 07:07 PM
I finished the Sebastien Loeb Challenge. It was incredible.
I got a few decent shots along the way. I have more but i got tired of the copy/paste routine.
I think they turned out alright, its the first time i've actually played with all of the settings.
Clicky for 1920x1080
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/gt5/EigerNordwandKTrail.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/gt5/ChamonixMain.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/gt5/Toscana.jpg
(it was in the middle of the day. filters are fun)
I got a few decent shots along the way. I have more but i got tired of the copy/paste routine.
I think they turned out alright, its the first time i've actually played with all of the settings.
Clicky for 1920x1080
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/gt5/EigerNordwandKTrail.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/gt5/ChamonixMain.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/gt5/Toscana.jpg
(it was in the middle of the day. filters are fun)
BaldiMac
Apr 6, 04:02 PM
It seems nobody learned from Apple's iPhone debacle:
"Hahaha, look at Android they only ship 1/10 of iPhones!!!" - 12 months later: "Uh, ok, Android outsells iOS 3:1 but Apple only ships 1 phone!!!!"
Now with tablets:
"Hahaha, look at the Android tablets, they only ship 1/10 of iPads." - 12 months later: Well you know...
Or:
"Hahaha, iPods outsell everyone else 3 to 1" - 10 years later: iPods outsell everyone else 3 to 1.
Apple has had a market share over 50% in three significant markets: iPods, digital music downloads, and "media tablets." They still have over 50% in all of those markets. Heck, you can probably throw mobile device apps in their aw well. There's no reason to think iPads will play out the same as iPhones.
"Hahaha, look at Android they only ship 1/10 of iPhones!!!" - 12 months later: "Uh, ok, Android outsells iOS 3:1 but Apple only ships 1 phone!!!!"
Now with tablets:
"Hahaha, look at the Android tablets, they only ship 1/10 of iPads." - 12 months later: Well you know...
Or:
"Hahaha, iPods outsell everyone else 3 to 1" - 10 years later: iPods outsell everyone else 3 to 1.
Apple has had a market share over 50% in three significant markets: iPods, digital music downloads, and "media tablets." They still have over 50% in all of those markets. Heck, you can probably throw mobile device apps in their aw well. There's no reason to think iPads will play out the same as iPhones.
snouter
Apr 6, 11:09 AM
Umm... You do realise clock speed is not everything don't you?
I hope you don't think a C2D is better then a SB Core i5
True.
Clock for clock the Arrandales are faster than C2D and Sandy Bridge is clock for clock faster than the Arrandales.
So a 1.4 Sandy Bridge will be quite a bit faster than than a 1.4 C2D within the same power envelope.
I hope you don't think a C2D is better then a SB Core i5
True.
Clock for clock the Arrandales are faster than C2D and Sandy Bridge is clock for clock faster than the Arrandales.
So a 1.4 Sandy Bridge will be quite a bit faster than than a 1.4 C2D within the same power envelope.
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 03:31 PM
Over the years I have bought a lot of computers for my business from a lot of different venders. To be honest Apple hardware support has never impressed me! :mad: I have actually had much better support from Dell than from Apple.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
ergle2
Sep 13, 07:19 PM
Obviously, since Intel is no longer creating new processors with HT.
By the way, previous poster, HT does not double the number of cores. Just the number of virtual cores. A Pentium 4 system with HT will run slower than a dual Pentium 4 system (with HT disabled) at the same clock speed.
Actually, many tasks were faster.
HyperThreading was thrown in to mask other deficiencies in the NetBurst arch by exploiting resources that were otherwise wasted.
There were a few cases where HT ran slower when HT first debuted, but with OS scheduler tweaks and BIOS updates (microcode changes, likely), HT was a net win in most cases.
Core 2 doesn't have the same design issues - mostly down to that excessively long pipeline - that Prescott had, and hence HT makes no sense.
The problem, however, lay with Netburst as a whole, rather than HT -- which offered a minor improvement in performance - a band-aid if you will.
By the way, previous poster, HT does not double the number of cores. Just the number of virtual cores. A Pentium 4 system with HT will run slower than a dual Pentium 4 system (with HT disabled) at the same clock speed.
Actually, many tasks were faster.
HyperThreading was thrown in to mask other deficiencies in the NetBurst arch by exploiting resources that were otherwise wasted.
There were a few cases where HT ran slower when HT first debuted, but with OS scheduler tweaks and BIOS updates (microcode changes, likely), HT was a net win in most cases.
Core 2 doesn't have the same design issues - mostly down to that excessively long pipeline - that Prescott had, and hence HT makes no sense.
The problem, however, lay with Netburst as a whole, rather than HT -- which offered a minor improvement in performance - a band-aid if you will.
gnasher729
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Shouldn't the flash HD have a significant role in overheating? I would think with the Flash HD with no moving parts it would be hard to over heat unless you sit there blocking the fan the whole time. :confused:
A hard drive uses less than 2 Watts while reading or writing. Flash uses the same or more when it is used; it only has an advantage when it is not used, where the hard disk drive has to spend energy to keep the drive spinning (less than 1 Watt).
A hard drive uses less than 2 Watts while reading or writing. Flash uses the same or more when it is used; it only has an advantage when it is not used, where the hard disk drive has to spend energy to keep the drive spinning (less than 1 Watt).
No comments:
Post a Comment