AppleScruff1
Apr 21, 11:04 PM
um. Huh? They don't seem to be winning much in the U.S. What is the source of your conjecture?
What have they lost?
What have they lost?
GekkePrutser
Apr 21, 12:11 PM
Also, the first MBA didn't have it, and they introduced it in the B revision. So they have been able to squeeze it in before where they weren't initially.
It would be a nice selling point for the upgraded model (as opposed to the base model), same as they did with the PowerBook for a while.
It would be a nice selling point for the upgraded model (as opposed to the base model), same as they did with the PowerBook for a while.
wordoflife
May 1, 09:55 PM
Looks like he had an iPhone.
Snowy_River
Jul 13, 12:52 AM
Those of you who have used both versions of Pages, do you find the '06 version to be significantly quicker? Someone a few pages ago commented on its sluggish performance. I have to admit that I've had sort of a delayed reaction (in terms of the time it takes for a sentence to appear after I've finished typing it) in my limited Pages experience. (Mind you, I do have an older machine.) A performance increase alone would be a worthy upgrade in my book.
-Squire
I've used Pages from day one. I'd say that Pages 2 seems just as quick if not quicker than Pages 1. I never really thought about it, so I can't say that I did any kind of comparison, and I no longer have Pages 1 on my computer to try to do a comparison with.
Before we finish on the bookfold tangent, I found a couple of useful sites that Snowy_River might want to peruse for his "booklet" style printing. This one (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2005021608303265) sets up a PDF Services script. This one (http://word.mvps.org/Mac/BookletsFold.html#BookletPrograms) looks at three programs that take a pdf (printed from Pages, or for that matter Word) and print in booklet form.
Back on topic, I am a heavy user of Pages (and other tools when they suit) and will certainly welcome the Charts and WP mode. Along with general usability tweaks.
I said it already, but let me reiterate: Thank you!
I downloaded the free application CocoaBooklet, and it works great! It even adds an option under the PDF menu to "print" directly to a PDF booklet. And it only reduces pages as far as they need to be reduced. (In one of my earlier attempts I tried using the layout option to print 2 pages on a PDF page, but it reduced each page as if it was 8-1/2 x 11 even though they were 5-1/2 x 8-1/2, so things were way too small.)
So I'm now ecstatic with this solution! I may still bring just the basic PDF file to the printer, but, then again, I may hand them this. Who knows?
So, yet again, thank you!
-Squire
I've used Pages from day one. I'd say that Pages 2 seems just as quick if not quicker than Pages 1. I never really thought about it, so I can't say that I did any kind of comparison, and I no longer have Pages 1 on my computer to try to do a comparison with.
Before we finish on the bookfold tangent, I found a couple of useful sites that Snowy_River might want to peruse for his "booklet" style printing. This one (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2005021608303265) sets up a PDF Services script. This one (http://word.mvps.org/Mac/BookletsFold.html#BookletPrograms) looks at three programs that take a pdf (printed from Pages, or for that matter Word) and print in booklet form.
Back on topic, I am a heavy user of Pages (and other tools when they suit) and will certainly welcome the Charts and WP mode. Along with general usability tweaks.
I said it already, but let me reiterate: Thank you!
I downloaded the free application CocoaBooklet, and it works great! It even adds an option under the PDF menu to "print" directly to a PDF booklet. And it only reduces pages as far as they need to be reduced. (In one of my earlier attempts I tried using the layout option to print 2 pages on a PDF page, but it reduced each page as if it was 8-1/2 x 11 even though they were 5-1/2 x 8-1/2, so things were way too small.)
So I'm now ecstatic with this solution! I may still bring just the basic PDF file to the printer, but, then again, I may hand them this. Who knows?
So, yet again, thank you!
more...
leekohler
Nov 1, 07:50 AM
'Nuff said.
Moyank24
Apr 28, 12:09 PM
Ouch, Appleguy. I believe you may have made our wolfish friend angry. Now we avenge you.
eldiablojoe
eldiablojoe
more...
Onimusha370
May 2, 01:13 PM
Looking forward to tomorrow, I'm just hoping it's Tuesday and not thursday. Hoping to lay my hands on a base 27 inch sometime in September :)
-aggie-
Apr 29, 11:59 AM
I scanned eldiablojoe last night. He is a WW.
Edit: Got out of the hospital and have been sleeping mostly since then. Now I wait for the biopsy results. Thanks for all those concerned.
Edit: Got out of the hospital and have been sleeping mostly since then. Now I wait for the biopsy results. Thanks for all those concerned.
more...
GekkePrutser
Apr 20, 10:16 AM
[
And the 13" MBP pulls 48W instead of it's 35W TDP. It's interesting.
I wish we had seen comparable numbers for the current MBA. Does it pull more than advertised under load? How much? If not, why not? Is turbo boost to blame?
The 35W is only the TDP of the processor. It doesn't include the harddrive, screen, chipset, battery charger, etc. So that's perfectly normal.
Also, TDP is not a perfectly accurate figure for power draw. It's the maximum a computer designer should budget for, both in terms of power supply, cooling, etc. So it means that in any case the sustained power draw of the processor alone won't exceed this.
It is, however, perfectly possible that the CPU draws much less power, even in a high-load situation. That could possibly be true for the current C2D's in the MBA, because they are a bit older and therefore intel might have got the process developed a bit more efficiently. So it could well be that the C2D's are working at powers below their TDP budget, while the Sandy Bridge ones are reaching the top of their budget.
And the 13" MBP pulls 48W instead of it's 35W TDP. It's interesting.
I wish we had seen comparable numbers for the current MBA. Does it pull more than advertised under load? How much? If not, why not? Is turbo boost to blame?
The 35W is only the TDP of the processor. It doesn't include the harddrive, screen, chipset, battery charger, etc. So that's perfectly normal.
Also, TDP is not a perfectly accurate figure for power draw. It's the maximum a computer designer should budget for, both in terms of power supply, cooling, etc. So it means that in any case the sustained power draw of the processor alone won't exceed this.
It is, however, perfectly possible that the CPU draws much less power, even in a high-load situation. That could possibly be true for the current C2D's in the MBA, because they are a bit older and therefore intel might have got the process developed a bit more efficiently. So it could well be that the C2D's are working at powers below their TDP budget, while the Sandy Bridge ones are reaching the top of their budget.
johnthevulcan
Jul 26, 03:07 AM
Wonders though how close you'd have to be, i mean if it is a few inches or less it is still a touch screen and the sillys will touch it anyway, but can you blame them it is an iPod. How can you not touch, even if youre not supposed to:) :) :)
more...
Moyank24
May 1, 11:14 PM
my fear is the democrats will try to use this a political gain and that is so very wrong both to the military and for this good event.
It turns a great event into worthless BS. It was just luck of the draw that a Dem was in power when this happen and it was only a matter of time. I already am watching some people try to turn it into political gain and it makes me sick.
And if a Republican was in office when it happened, you don't think they would have tried to use it for political gain?
It's politics. Period.
It turns a great event into worthless BS. It was just luck of the draw that a Dem was in power when this happen and it was only a matter of time. I already am watching some people try to turn it into political gain and it makes me sick.
And if a Republican was in office when it happened, you don't think they would have tried to use it for political gain?
It's politics. Period.
Benjy91
Apr 22, 06:57 AM
I thought pretty much everyone had infringed on everyone else's patents?
more...
Michaelgtrusa
May 3, 07:47 AM
Looks good.
PghLondon
May 1, 05:27 AM
Of course there is. iOS runs on two currently available Apple smartphone models: 3GS and 4. The iOS that runs on these phones is sufficiently different in feature sets from the iOS that runs on Tablets, media consumption devices, and Apple TVs:
-Larger resolution on tablets
-Communications handled separately - No phone app or visual voicemail on Tablet or iPod Touch
-No installable apps on Apple TV
AppleTV isn't being counted. If it had apps, it would be. For now, while it's running iOS "under the hood", Apple and analysts aren't actually mentioning that or using it in counts.
And the differences between iPad / iPod / iPhone are orders of magnitude less than the differences between the ultra-high and ultra-low ends of what is being counted as Android "phones".
This whole "smartphone OS" is something dreamed up in the last few weeks by Android apologists, after the numbers showed that Apple has the most popular OS and the most popular piece(s) of hardware in the mobile industry.
-Larger resolution on tablets
-Communications handled separately - No phone app or visual voicemail on Tablet or iPod Touch
-No installable apps on Apple TV
AppleTV isn't being counted. If it had apps, it would be. For now, while it's running iOS "under the hood", Apple and analysts aren't actually mentioning that or using it in counts.
And the differences between iPad / iPod / iPhone are orders of magnitude less than the differences between the ultra-high and ultra-low ends of what is being counted as Android "phones".
This whole "smartphone OS" is something dreamed up in the last few weeks by Android apologists, after the numbers showed that Apple has the most popular OS and the most popular piece(s) of hardware in the mobile industry.
more...
leekohler
Mar 10, 05:31 PM
I have stayed out of this one for a while, but now he has gone from "sick" to "awesome" with this video on Funny or Die.
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/5cwg
I don't even know what to say...
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/5cwg
I don't even know what to say...
Komentra
Apr 14, 02:02 PM
It's not a bug.
You had to manually tick a box which counted Home Sharing play counts on the iTunes overall one.
Even with it ticked it still doesn't update play counts. That's where the bug is.
Tried it on OS X and Windows and still doesn't work. I've heard it works fine from computers and Apple TV but on devices it doesn't even though it's suppose to.
EDIT: Got a post over on the official Apple forums discussing it and it has a lot of replies of people reporting the exact same thing. I haven't even found a single person who has said it works.
By the way if anyone who has updated to 4.3.2 and would like to test it and let me know if it's fixed that'd be awesome. :D
You had to manually tick a box which counted Home Sharing play counts on the iTunes overall one.
Even with it ticked it still doesn't update play counts. That's where the bug is.
Tried it on OS X and Windows and still doesn't work. I've heard it works fine from computers and Apple TV but on devices it doesn't even though it's suppose to.
EDIT: Got a post over on the official Apple forums discussing it and it has a lot of replies of people reporting the exact same thing. I haven't even found a single person who has said it works.
By the way if anyone who has updated to 4.3.2 and would like to test it and let me know if it's fixed that'd be awesome. :D
more...
FX4568
Apr 17, 08:37 PM
I get you... it's not just about games!
...except all your examples ARE games!
Like millions of other Mac owners, I don't play any games on my Mac and haven't for years. With iOS devices and consoles being so much cheaper, it just doesn't make any sense to me to pimp-up my Mac for gaming.
Dont let my lack of knowledge be the "hole" of the argument, considering that you might know more than me, we all know GPU tasks are not only gaming, but also many other applications involve this. Again, because of my lack of knowledge this might not be 100% backed up, but I can guess that games will not be the sole purpose of a GPU.
I bet that Mac gamers are a majority rather than a minority.
...except all your examples ARE games!
Like millions of other Mac owners, I don't play any games on my Mac and haven't for years. With iOS devices and consoles being so much cheaper, it just doesn't make any sense to me to pimp-up my Mac for gaming.
Dont let my lack of knowledge be the "hole" of the argument, considering that you might know more than me, we all know GPU tasks are not only gaming, but also many other applications involve this. Again, because of my lack of knowledge this might not be 100% backed up, but I can guess that games will not be the sole purpose of a GPU.
I bet that Mac gamers are a majority rather than a minority.
lharvest
Apr 12, 09:47 AM
http://tubays.smugmug.com/photos/1249329953_fnKrQ-L.jpg
mkjj
Jul 25, 08:55 AM
Notice the new MM BT works from one OR two batteries, that's clever!
AppleScruff1
Apr 13, 07:28 PM
What are they gonna call it? Apple TV?
Sheep tv would be more like it. What's next, a supermarket?
Sheep tv would be more like it. What's next, a supermarket?
Burgess07
Apr 15, 07:17 PM
Although I find the slider buttons pretty, I think these are just a step to touch-interface. It makes sense when you have to actually slide the button (with your fingers). But when using a mouse/trackpad, it is more logical to point at the option you want and the selection will slide to the requested option.
I think this will return when touch-based interface will make its entry.
Apple could make them an option in System Preferences :p
281525
I think this will return when touch-based interface will make its entry.
Apple could make them an option in System Preferences :p
281525
LoganT
Apr 26, 08:31 PM
If 30 million people like the song "My Hero" by Foo Fighters, 30 million people don't need to upload that same song. I predict the service will scan your library and then say "We've found 750 out of 775 matching tracks" and possibly allow you to upload the tracks that are not on iTunes. So instead of uploading 775 songs, you would only have to upload 25 songs.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 11, 10:54 AM
What's with all the developers that won't do Universal Apps?
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.
This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.
You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.
As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.
This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.
You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.
As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.
bizill
Apr 26, 01:28 PM
Wow, it's entertaining how some people are whining that this won't be free. You really think Apple spent tens of millions of $$ (at a minimum) on a 12 Petabyte data center just to give the service away?
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий