Al Coholic
Apr 3, 01:15 PM
I don't think you understand how this works.
You can't be that thick. No way. You're just being a contrarian for the sake of it. Have to be.
It doesn't take much to get the iPad pom pom's a-wavin' around here.
Don't get me wrong. It's a "cute" ad but that's the point of my protest. It's just insulting. Why, if this thing is capable of so much must they resort to these kinds of antics? You guys are just gullible.
One of my patients has locked in syndrome, a condition in which he could only move his eyes. Over a year he regained use of his right hand. The iPad has given him a new lease of life - his voice, entertainment, etc. He would disagree with your idiotic statement.
So the iPad saved him? So much for giving the medical staff their due. LOL!
There will be other tablets eeking out iPad's market share soon enough. Don't be too quick in lobbying the Pope for Mr. Jobs' sainthood just yet.
You can't be that thick. No way. You're just being a contrarian for the sake of it. Have to be.
It doesn't take much to get the iPad pom pom's a-wavin' around here.
Don't get me wrong. It's a "cute" ad but that's the point of my protest. It's just insulting. Why, if this thing is capable of so much must they resort to these kinds of antics? You guys are just gullible.
One of my patients has locked in syndrome, a condition in which he could only move his eyes. Over a year he regained use of his right hand. The iPad has given him a new lease of life - his voice, entertainment, etc. He would disagree with your idiotic statement.
So the iPad saved him? So much for giving the medical staff their due. LOL!
There will be other tablets eeking out iPad's market share soon enough. Don't be too quick in lobbying the Pope for Mr. Jobs' sainthood just yet.
kiljoy616
Mar 22, 03:58 PM
Rather see an ipad with that size now that be something sweet. :)
Zeppelin Air and ipad 2 will surely rock with that kind of size HD. :D
Zeppelin Air and ipad 2 will surely rock with that kind of size HD. :D
R.Perez
Mar 19, 06:18 AM
Its always a tough call, if you don't go in you risk something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Where over half a million people are killed.
Yup.
You know I am almost always critical of US military action, but in this case...
It might need to be taken.
We do have an obligation to stop atrocities if we are aware of them.
That said, this needs to be an international action, not like the "coalition of the willing" that went into Iraq. In fact, id prefer it if the US was NOT the main force by any stretch. We should give plenty of support, but we should be careful to not give the impression that we are taking the primary role in another conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Where over half a million people are killed.
Yup.
You know I am almost always critical of US military action, but in this case...
It might need to be taken.
We do have an obligation to stop atrocities if we are aware of them.
That said, this needs to be an international action, not like the "coalition of the willing" that went into Iraq. In fact, id prefer it if the US was NOT the main force by any stretch. We should give plenty of support, but we should be careful to not give the impression that we are taking the primary role in another conflict.
stevehp
Oct 23, 09:32 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
not working for me either!
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
not working for me either!
codymac
Apr 11, 08:03 PM
Kinda. They are manual gear boxes with no clutch pedal. Shifting is either automatic or manual.
Technically, it's a manual gearbox... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox)
If this sounds strange, I had an old Beetle with a stick shift automatic.
Dale
I mean their manuals.
(Not the VW Autostick or any of their other manumatic stuff.)
Technically, it's a manual gearbox... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox)
If this sounds strange, I had an old Beetle with a stick shift automatic.
Dale
I mean their manuals.
(Not the VW Autostick or any of their other manumatic stuff.)
louis Fashion
Apr 3, 01:55 PM
This ad will never work. People want ads that make them feel like teenage boys. I know this from Android ads. Steel and lasers, Apple. Steel and lasers!
Great post. Maybe we should ban all iPad sales to "over 18" that would firmly place Apple in the "elitist" camp
Great post. Maybe we should ban all iPad sales to "over 18" that would firmly place Apple in the "elitist" camp
bobsentell
May 2, 05:44 PM
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
NATO
Aug 16, 07:35 AM
If they use WiFi with the new iPods, they'll need a chunky battery. When I still used a PDA, the battery life nose dived when you turned on the WiFi. . .
cube
Mar 24, 02:04 PM
There are few PCIe lanes in Thunderbolt. You cannot do heavy graphics.
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
jagolden
Sep 7, 11:16 AM
I'm not sure whether to be offended by this grotesque post, or should just laugh at how utterly uneducated some people are when it comes to history and political ideology o.O
Anyway, this is probably not the best place for the communism argument, which invariably ends up with everyone agreeing it's a good theory, but half of the forum claiming "it won't work because of human nature" etc., at which point the debate cannot continue.
So back to Macs and ****?
Funny, that's what I thought reading your original post.
Cearly "education" didn't serve you as you started the communism argument.
Please, enlghten me, off forum, so I may better understand.
Considering your locations (UK and France) I'm not surprised.
Anyway, this is probably not the best place for the communism argument, which invariably ends up with everyone agreeing it's a good theory, but half of the forum claiming "it won't work because of human nature" etc., at which point the debate cannot continue.
So back to Macs and ****?
Funny, that's what I thought reading your original post.
Cearly "education" didn't serve you as you started the communism argument.
Please, enlghten me, off forum, so I may better understand.
Considering your locations (UK and France) I'm not surprised.
powerbook911
Sep 6, 06:35 PM
The quality needs to be *at least* DVD quality. Of course, with H264 they could do this in smaller file size than traditional DVDs.
However, I somehow doubt they'll do the smart thing and have it DVD quality. We could only hope. If they did, I'd probably buy a handful of movies (3 or 4) before the year ended, if they got some more studios.
However, I somehow doubt they'll do the smart thing and have it DVD quality. We could only hope. If they did, I'd probably buy a handful of movies (3 or 4) before the year ended, if they got some more studios.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:11 PM
Try again what ? It's not a word mark, it's a typed drawing, meaning you could trademark Pet Store too if it is a different drawing all together (different font, different shape, different color).
It's basically a logo trademark, like let's say : :apple:
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
"Registration of a mark in the standard character format will provide broad rights, namely use in any manner of presentation."
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/index.jsp
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
1. Look, the form in which it was trademarked matters. Otherwise, there would only be 1 type of mark. You can overrule it all you want, in the end you were wrong.
2. App is as much a part of the lexicon as pet. I know I've been using it for more than a decade.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
The point that has been brought forth to the USPTO is that Apple has no right to an exclusive mark on App Store because of its descriptive and generic nature. This is not like the examples you cite, the problem is not that Apple has a shoe store they want to call Yellow, it's that they have a shoe store they want to call shoe store.
That is the problem defined by people who object to Apple's trademark. It has not been decided whether Apple's trademark should be invalidated based on this opinion yet.
It's basically a logo trademark, like let's say : :apple:
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
"Registration of a mark in the standard character format will provide broad rights, namely use in any manner of presentation."
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/index.jsp
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
1. Look, the form in which it was trademarked matters. Otherwise, there would only be 1 type of mark. You can overrule it all you want, in the end you were wrong.
2. App is as much a part of the lexicon as pet. I know I've been using it for more than a decade.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
The point that has been brought forth to the USPTO is that Apple has no right to an exclusive mark on App Store because of its descriptive and generic nature. This is not like the examples you cite, the problem is not that Apple has a shoe store they want to call Yellow, it's that they have a shoe store they want to call shoe store.
That is the problem defined by people who object to Apple's trademark. It has not been decided whether Apple's trademark should be invalidated based on this opinion yet.
cube
Mar 24, 02:02 PM
I wonder if support is really there or just the ability to identify the cards.
Chundles
Mar 31, 06:56 AM
1. iCal is pug fugly.
2. After 10.4,5,6 and now 7 the Dashboard widgets still don't stay put.
3. Still buggy. For example - I just had to restart Safari to type in this field.
It does feel very slick though, app launch times, the smoothness of the animations and scrolling all make the machine feel MUCH faster than it does in Snow Leopard.
I'm yet to try any of this with a regular mouse but damn we're going to be selling a lot of Magic Trackpads.
2. After 10.4,5,6 and now 7 the Dashboard widgets still don't stay put.
3. Still buggy. For example - I just had to restart Safari to type in this field.
It does feel very slick though, app launch times, the smoothness of the animations and scrolling all make the machine feel MUCH faster than it does in Snow Leopard.
I'm yet to try any of this with a regular mouse but damn we're going to be selling a lot of Magic Trackpads.
islanders
Dec 28, 10:41 AM
SeaFox, So what you are saying its that:
�You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.�
1) the iTV should is not and should not have a harddrive, or any kind of computer capabilities? You say I�m comparing apples to oranges when I said my cable box has a harddrive, assuming I don�t know what a tuner is, when I was just saying a harddive is not that big a deal. And if it doesn�t have one that will be less of a reason to buy one.
2) �The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.�
Natalie Portman at the
natalie portman golden globes
Natalie Portman
�You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.�
1) the iTV should is not and should not have a harddrive, or any kind of computer capabilities? You say I�m comparing apples to oranges when I said my cable box has a harddrive, assuming I don�t know what a tuner is, when I was just saying a harddive is not that big a deal. And if it doesn�t have one that will be less of a reason to buy one.
2) �The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.�
A.Fairhead
Jul 18, 04:11 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
I agree; I watch movies a lot more than I buy movies. When I go to the cinema, I pay to watch the film, not to own it. Most people do this - owning films is something of an impulse post-viewing, in my experience. If iTMS can provide a rental service, that's great. If they end up providing purchases too, then, that's great too. Apple will be able to target 'viewing' markets as well as 'purchase' markets, if the difference is easy enough to see there.
I guess my thoughts are to not rule out rentals - I'm sure many of you work with films like I've just described :p
rgarjr
Mar 22, 09:17 PM
What is there to update on the classic besides capacity?
lots, Bluetooth, WIFI (for internet radio), design..
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
lots, Bluetooth, WIFI (for internet radio), design..
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
swingerofbirch
Sep 6, 11:30 PM
I think fixed pricing for movie purchases would encourage better movie production. There are crappy movies that quickly become $7 on DVD after they are released. And there are ones that stay around $17-19.
I have one sort of off topic question: has anyone ever bought a DVD at 7-11 or Eckerd for $24.99? Why would anyone do that? It makes me sad to think people might not know they are paying three times more than they have to. Maybe I'm just too jaded.
I have one sort of off topic question: has anyone ever bought a DVD at 7-11 or Eckerd for $24.99? Why would anyone do that? It makes me sad to think people might not know they are paying three times more than they have to. Maybe I'm just too jaded.
newagemac
May 3, 09:02 AM
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
slu
Jul 18, 10:07 AM
Good. I want to be able to rent TV shows as well. You can really only watch The Daily Show once.
Let me sum it up for everyone:
Renting music = Bad
Renting video = Good
Let me sum it up for everyone:
Renting music = Bad
Renting video = Good
(marc)
Mar 20, 06:19 AM
[...]
Truth, as ever, is the first casualty of war, and nobody seems to care as long as they can fabricate a good narrative.
Agreed. It's true for both sides, though: Gaddafi is (said to be) hauling bodies to UN bombing sites to demonstrate the "civilian casualties".
Truth, as ever, is the first casualty of war, and nobody seems to care as long as they can fabricate a good narrative.
Agreed. It's true for both sides, though: Gaddafi is (said to be) hauling bodies to UN bombing sites to demonstrate the "civilian casualties".
Yamcha
May 2, 05:21 PM
Whatever happened to Command-Delete?
....this is starting to look like Aero in Windows Vista.
See any similarities?
Image (http://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/How-to-remove-the-confirmation-prompt-to-delete-any-file-in-Windows-7-2.png)
Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg)
lol true, infact the new buttons look similar to the ones found on Windows 7.. Anyway one thing that is annoying about Launchpad is that you cannot remove applications from the grid, sometimes you end up with uninstallers, and it just becomes a huge mess, would be nice if we could remove applications from Launchpad, not necessarily uninstalling them but just removing them from the grid..
....this is starting to look like Aero in Windows Vista.
See any similarities?
Image (http://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/How-to-remove-the-confirmation-prompt-to-delete-any-file-in-Windows-7-2.png)
Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg)
lol true, infact the new buttons look similar to the ones found on Windows 7.. Anyway one thing that is annoying about Launchpad is that you cannot remove applications from the grid, sometimes you end up with uninstallers, and it just becomes a huge mess, would be nice if we could remove applications from Launchpad, not necessarily uninstalling them but just removing them from the grid..
FreeState
Mar 23, 03:00 PM
The App has been pulled because it is not in compliance with developer guidelines.
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-pulls-gay-cure-app-over-dev-guidelines/87815
Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr said Wednesday:
�We removed the Exodus International app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.�
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-pulls-gay-cure-app-over-dev-guidelines/87815
Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr said Wednesday:
�We removed the Exodus International app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.�
No comments:
Post a Comment