MCIowaRulz
Apr 12, 09:25 PM
The ancient "rendering video..." progress bar you get to watch, which locks you out of every other function.
Annoyed the crap out of me... I edited a 1hr documentary slide show and it was a 20 minutes render on my (former) Macbook Pro i7 with 8 GB RAM.
I'm waiting patently for the iMac 2011 SB and will order the day they are available
Annoyed the crap out of me... I edited a 1hr documentary slide show and it was a 20 minutes render on my (former) Macbook Pro i7 with 8 GB RAM.
I'm waiting patently for the iMac 2011 SB and will order the day they are available
BJB Productions
Apr 12, 09:43 PM
Thank you, right on time.
And also, it is exactly the FCP interface we've had since the beginning. And the beginning of time. (it really only depends on which elements you want to emphasize.)
Well I really can't judge it until I'm actually able to touch and use it myself, but from the looks, they've gone consumer. *here's hoping for the best* I really want it to work... but Adobe is looking better by the day.
And also, it is exactly the FCP interface we've had since the beginning. And the beginning of time. (it really only depends on which elements you want to emphasize.)
Well I really can't judge it until I'm actually able to touch and use it myself, but from the looks, they've gone consumer. *here's hoping for the best* I really want it to work... but Adobe is looking better by the day.
SchneiderMan
Nov 25, 09:10 PM
Exactly.
But it's a Pelican.
Ferrari > Honda
Pelican > Normal Eyeglasses Case
;) :p :D
Couldn't you find a smaller Pelican case? I mean that's why everyone is up in your face :p
But it's a Pelican.
Ferrari > Honda
Pelican > Normal Eyeglasses Case
;) :p :D
Couldn't you find a smaller Pelican case? I mean that's why everyone is up in your face :p
CplBadboy
Apr 19, 01:16 PM
Hoooraaaayyyyyy!!!
The news Ive been waiting for and not a blinking boring update to the iPhone being white. Maxed out iMac here we come. Its been long time coming. Happy Chappy:D
The news Ive been waiting for and not a blinking boring update to the iPhone being white. Maxed out iMac here we come. Its been long time coming. Happy Chappy:D
eye
Mar 25, 09:15 PM
Not for me, but I imagine other tablet makers are again shrugging their shoulders and scratching their heads. The iPad keeps nudging its way into different niches that others haven't thought of yet.
OdduWon
Jan 2, 07:37 PM
I really hope the iTV will stream internet radio as well as iTunes stuff..
I can then replace my Roku with it...
Yeah it would be cool to be able to have a "frontrow" to concerts and events thru iTV. also it wold be cool to have the ability to record sows thru the iTMS at a flat rate per episode. this could bring new content providers on board with apple.
I can then replace my Roku with it...
Yeah it would be cool to be able to have a "frontrow" to concerts and events thru iTV. also it wold be cool to have the ability to record sows thru the iTMS at a flat rate per episode. this could bring new content providers on board with apple.
AppleDroid
Apr 19, 12:58 PM
It be fine if the ACD wasn't a grand. :eek:
True but there are plenty of other manufactures that make monitors with DP...
The current apple cinema displays don't have a thunderbolt port. And actually I think the macbooks have more to fear from the ipads than the iMacs do from the macbooks. Also, there used to be a time not long ago, that artists ALWAYS went for the Mac pros over an iMac.....but that is not the case anymore. I know filmmakers, photographers, graphic artists and the like who've chosen the maxed out iMac instead of a Mac pro.
No doubt especially studios (for design anyway) but considering the cost of buying an iMac (for office) plus a MBP (for meetings, on the go) it is getting much more cost efficient to just get the MBP + external keyboard/monitor for the home/office. (Plus some of designers hate glossy but I won't go there!)
You are absolut right. There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a desktop. Internal storage options and main memory are the remaining main reasons - otherwise, laptops got so powerful that they can act desktop replacement. I still like to have my iMac (and will get a new one), but guess I'm a bit 'old fashioned' here - I also have a MacBook Pro and can do everything there that I can do on my iMac.
I think if Apple would allow what most other companies do, swap the optical drive for a 2nd HDD bay, most of us (myself included) would not need a Mac Pro anymore for 90% of what we do. Note: hardcore 3D/editors I understand you will always need your power tower.
True but there are plenty of other manufactures that make monitors with DP...
The current apple cinema displays don't have a thunderbolt port. And actually I think the macbooks have more to fear from the ipads than the iMacs do from the macbooks. Also, there used to be a time not long ago, that artists ALWAYS went for the Mac pros over an iMac.....but that is not the case anymore. I know filmmakers, photographers, graphic artists and the like who've chosen the maxed out iMac instead of a Mac pro.
No doubt especially studios (for design anyway) but considering the cost of buying an iMac (for office) plus a MBP (for meetings, on the go) it is getting much more cost efficient to just get the MBP + external keyboard/monitor for the home/office. (Plus some of designers hate glossy but I won't go there!)
You are absolut right. There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a desktop. Internal storage options and main memory are the remaining main reasons - otherwise, laptops got so powerful that they can act desktop replacement. I still like to have my iMac (and will get a new one), but guess I'm a bit 'old fashioned' here - I also have a MacBook Pro and can do everything there that I can do on my iMac.
I think if Apple would allow what most other companies do, swap the optical drive for a 2nd HDD bay, most of us (myself included) would not need a Mac Pro anymore for 90% of what we do. Note: hardcore 3D/editors I understand you will always need your power tower.
twoodcc
Aug 6, 08:41 PM
wow, that's some bold statements by Apple. i'm sure that they'll back them up though
xlii
Apr 20, 02:35 PM
Can you even buy a car today (in the USA) that has the following:
manual transmission
manual steering
manual brakes
wind em up yourself windows
Sure, I understand it has to have the emission controls on it but if I could get a car without all the electronic stuff on it that tries to disconnect me from the feel of the road.
manual transmission
manual steering
manual brakes
wind em up yourself windows
Sure, I understand it has to have the emission controls on it but if I could get a car without all the electronic stuff on it that tries to disconnect me from the feel of the road.
TangoCharlie
Aug 25, 05:27 AM
What the @*!& is Labour Day? Something to do with Tony Blair?
No, that would be New Labour Day. Labour Day is May 1st. :) :confused:
No, that would be New Labour Day. Labour Day is May 1st. :) :confused:
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.
spicyapple
Nov 29, 01:40 PM
Maybe you can do video iChat sessions with an optional iSight camera right from the livingroom TV?
This reminds me of the old Zenith TVs with space phones where you could talk to a caller from the comfort of your sofa. (but voices usually sounded like it was underwater).
This reminds me of the old Zenith TVs with space phones where you could talk to a caller from the comfort of your sofa. (but voices usually sounded like it was underwater).
apb3
Aug 31, 10:12 AM
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
M. Malone
Oct 24, 02:05 AM
this is OG stiff one
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macbookproOG.jpg
it appears you forgot about that light that dims and brightens when the machine sleeps :D
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macbookproOG.jpg
it appears you forgot about that light that dims and brightens when the machine sleeps :D
Travis Bickle
Mar 24, 01:34 PM
Probably a daft question but i'll ask anyhows so forgive my techie noobness!
With the advent of thunderbolt and its high bandwidth, will it possible for a gfx card to be sited externally in some kind of cradle and be used as the main gfx card or wouldn't the internal "plumbing" allow it to happen ?
/noob mode off
;)
With the advent of thunderbolt and its high bandwidth, will it possible for a gfx card to be sited externally in some kind of cradle and be used as the main gfx card or wouldn't the internal "plumbing" allow it to happen ?
/noob mode off
;)
kirky29
Jun 22, 01:14 PM
Maybe if they made it a bit like Front Row etc.
.. But with the ability to have it in a window mode. :)
.. But with the ability to have it in a window mode. :)
neko girl
Mar 19, 11:28 PM
I used it. It didn't work for me ):
Peterkro
Mar 21, 06:18 PM
Chinese naval vessel in the Med,to apparently to extract Chinese workers from Libya (I thought they got them all out before the western nations)?
twoodcc
Oct 14, 07:14 AM
Thanks! I'll try it on my work computer, its a quad.
you can try it. but really the only quad machines that have been making the deadline is the core i7s. what kind of machine do you have at work?
you can try it. but really the only quad machines that have been making the deadline is the core i7s. what kind of machine do you have at work?
Lesser Evets
Apr 21, 11:20 AM
I spy in my third eye.... a lead iPhone case on market in 3... 2... 1...
Lollypop
Jul 20, 07:47 AM
What makes you think that you have to do that?
have you ever used Linux? Application-installation in any modern Linux-distro is VERY smooth. If I want to install an app in Ubuntu (the previous distro I used), how do I do that? Well, I load a package-manager, which gives me a list of apps. I select the app I want to install, and click "Install". And that's it. How much simpler could it be? Why does everyone think that loading a web-browser, searching the app with Google, browsing to the website, downloading the installer (assuming that the apps is free. Usually with Mac, it's not) and running the installer is somehow "easier" that launching an app, selecting the app to be installed from a list and clicking "install"? Seriously?
What do you mean by "unified front"? The GUI? Most distros use either KDE or GNOME (usually alloweing the user to choose which one he prefers), so they are in fact quite unified.
I have used Linux before, admit that I gave up with linux with Suse 9. The point I was trying to make with the package manager is that its not easy to go out and find something, every time you either have to find a package for your specific distribution or have it "built" for your distro. If you look at the way the mac works now I can drag the aduim icon to a remote drive, and from almost any machine that meets the basic specs I can then double click that app, even if its on a network drive, it will run, can you say the same for Linux?
By unification I meant giving a constant user experience with singal points of administration, management ect. Some of my previous sessions with linux the applications did not always fully adhere to guidelines that were set out by KDE, whatever theme i choose, it didnt adapt to it for example. I fully admit im not a linux guru, and that things very likely have changed, but my perception is that every distro comes with a boat load of software on the DVD or via download, if you want to get something thats not listed it becomes a bit more difficult. There is the issue of building your own kernel and then software for it but other than bulding the kernel i have no knowlede of any related issues.
The mac advantage is that its a bit easier to get, install and run applications than windows, and IMO linux as well. Thats a advantage apple should leverage and try and sell more if they are going to sell more machines and increase the market share of the entire platform.
I agree with kalisphoenix to an extent when he says that the linux people dont want a single unified distro, the linux crowd doesnt want a true singular unfied platform, why is there a few big distros out there after years of linux development, why are there so many niche ones, and why do linux users argue with others over their favorite distro? Diversity and flexability is one of the strenghts of Linux, its users know that, and having a single distro that does everything will counter that strength, they also know that.
Im not taking on linux, to the contrary I believe linux has a critical place, I personally believe that its diversity/flexibility is one of the reasons it hasnt concored the desktop market, (peolpe want the plain and simple windows thing, to much options makes it overly complex), diversity/flexibility is the same reason linux has concored the server market.
have you ever used Linux? Application-installation in any modern Linux-distro is VERY smooth. If I want to install an app in Ubuntu (the previous distro I used), how do I do that? Well, I load a package-manager, which gives me a list of apps. I select the app I want to install, and click "Install". And that's it. How much simpler could it be? Why does everyone think that loading a web-browser, searching the app with Google, browsing to the website, downloading the installer (assuming that the apps is free. Usually with Mac, it's not) and running the installer is somehow "easier" that launching an app, selecting the app to be installed from a list and clicking "install"? Seriously?
What do you mean by "unified front"? The GUI? Most distros use either KDE or GNOME (usually alloweing the user to choose which one he prefers), so they are in fact quite unified.
I have used Linux before, admit that I gave up with linux with Suse 9. The point I was trying to make with the package manager is that its not easy to go out and find something, every time you either have to find a package for your specific distribution or have it "built" for your distro. If you look at the way the mac works now I can drag the aduim icon to a remote drive, and from almost any machine that meets the basic specs I can then double click that app, even if its on a network drive, it will run, can you say the same for Linux?
By unification I meant giving a constant user experience with singal points of administration, management ect. Some of my previous sessions with linux the applications did not always fully adhere to guidelines that were set out by KDE, whatever theme i choose, it didnt adapt to it for example. I fully admit im not a linux guru, and that things very likely have changed, but my perception is that every distro comes with a boat load of software on the DVD or via download, if you want to get something thats not listed it becomes a bit more difficult. There is the issue of building your own kernel and then software for it but other than bulding the kernel i have no knowlede of any related issues.
The mac advantage is that its a bit easier to get, install and run applications than windows, and IMO linux as well. Thats a advantage apple should leverage and try and sell more if they are going to sell more machines and increase the market share of the entire platform.
I agree with kalisphoenix to an extent when he says that the linux people dont want a single unified distro, the linux crowd doesnt want a true singular unfied platform, why is there a few big distros out there after years of linux development, why are there so many niche ones, and why do linux users argue with others over their favorite distro? Diversity and flexability is one of the strenghts of Linux, its users know that, and having a single distro that does everything will counter that strength, they also know that.
Im not taking on linux, to the contrary I believe linux has a critical place, I personally believe that its diversity/flexibility is one of the reasons it hasnt concored the desktop market, (peolpe want the plain and simple windows thing, to much options makes it overly complex), diversity/flexibility is the same reason linux has concored the server market.
theBigD23
May 2, 07:01 PM
I feel the same way. I just want to delete an app that delete all of the junk that comes with it. Just moving it to e trash does not do that. Some programs have an uninstall and some don't. That's more confusing for people.
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
andrew.gw
Apr 3, 03:39 AM
False. DP 2 can install directly to a blank drive/partitlon.
Agreed. I installed both Developer Previews on a clean drive � you just have to burn them to a DVD.
Agreed. I installed both Developer Previews on a clean drive � you just have to burn them to a DVD.
macEfan
Nov 29, 10:30 PM
Its the Pippin 2!! this time its intel instead of Bandai!
lets hope so!
I want a pippin, but they are all so rare and expensive... would be grate if the itv let you play games on your tv!
lets hope so!
I want a pippin, but they are all so rare and expensive... would be grate if the itv let you play games on your tv!
No comments:
Post a Comment