laserbeam273
May 3, 07:44 AM
Anybody got geekbench results yet? :rolleyes:
Australia store has been updated, but won't go through to "buy it now". I want to check the BTO prices on it!
EDIT: also glad to see that the AUD price has dropped a bit. Still, the base item is AUD 1399 so that's over USD 1,500 - how does that compare for you Americans?
Australia store has been updated, but won't go through to "buy it now". I want to check the BTO prices on it!
EDIT: also glad to see that the AUD price has dropped a bit. Still, the base item is AUD 1399 so that's over USD 1,500 - how does that compare for you Americans?
Apple 26.2
Apr 22, 04:47 PM
Ugh. As if!
TOYSTER17
Apr 23, 08:22 PM
http://www.9to5mac.com/63457/leaked-t-mobile-iphone-has-an-a5-chip-might-be-the-iphone-4s/
They think it has an A5 chip. I'd take a wager if true, it's definitely coming to T-mobile. I'm sure Apple knows of the hurdles AT&T needs to overcome to buyout Tmobile, why take the chance of not releasing an iPhone and then the buyout doesn't go through? I can see it now, "we're announcing the iPhone on T-Mobile USA, 42+Mbps, it's magical" -Steve
They think it has an A5 chip. I'd take a wager if true, it's definitely coming to T-mobile. I'm sure Apple knows of the hurdles AT&T needs to overcome to buyout Tmobile, why take the chance of not releasing an iPhone and then the buyout doesn't go through? I can see it now, "we're announcing the iPhone on T-Mobile USA, 42+Mbps, it's magical" -Steve
NoNothing
Mar 29, 01:48 PM
So the reason apple charges more is because??? Seems like google is a better deal.
Not like that matters, if you develop for OSX, iOS or both... Then the sky high price might be worth it.
It is 5 days and not 2? Apple has more sessions?
Not like that matters, if you develop for OSX, iOS or both... Then the sky high price might be worth it.
It is 5 days and not 2? Apple has more sessions?
Giuly
Apr 16, 05:28 AM
Grab yourself a copy of xdelta (http://xdelta.org/) and do your fancy small update package yourself. There's even no need to look at Google, this was common practice on Gentoo GNU/Linux years ago (http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=318671). I remember running a satellite server myself. However, that were ISDN/Analog/DSL 765k days, who on 16MBit cares whether the updates are 30 or 300MB anymore, as long as Apple hosts the files?
xbuddycorex
Apr 22, 06:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love it, don't know how I feel about a chrome back though.
I love it, don't know how I feel about a chrome back though.
WeegieMac
Apr 14, 02:03 PM
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.
Hmmm, strange. A lot of people got caught out by that little check box, which is why I posted it.
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.
Hmmm, strange. A lot of people got caught out by that little check box, which is why I posted it.
Nemesis
Oct 23, 05:33 PM
This is great news!
So more and more people will finally realise that running Mac OS X only is far, far, far cheaper, more stabile and less troublesome.
Way to go Microsoft, we love you! Please make Business Edition three times more expensive too, make software registration five time more complicated and annoying as hell, include more ironcurtain restrictions, so people can buy more and more Macs.
So more and more people will finally realise that running Mac OS X only is far, far, far cheaper, more stabile and less troublesome.
Way to go Microsoft, we love you! Please make Business Edition three times more expensive too, make software registration five time more complicated and annoying as hell, include more ironcurtain restrictions, so people can buy more and more Macs.
cmaier
Apr 21, 11:13 PM
They're not suing them to make money, or protect their patents.
It's the trademark they are protecting. They'll probably lose in court, but win outside of it.
Apple sued on 7 utility and 3 design patents, plus the trademarks.
It's the trademark they are protecting. They'll probably lose in court, but win outside of it.
Apple sued on 7 utility and 3 design patents, plus the trademarks.
destroyboredom
Apr 12, 04:52 PM
Looks like ill be going to Android.
Some how I doubt that. You have an iPhone 4 and your upgrade isn't until 11/25/2011 (as previously stated by you). I guess you could go android but it may come at a steep cost.
Some how I doubt that. You have an iPhone 4 and your upgrade isn't until 11/25/2011 (as previously stated by you). I guess you could go android but it may come at a steep cost.
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:02 AM
The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.
It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.
Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses to also run the same licensed copy of Vista running natively on the licensed device in a virtualization environment as well.
In other words, if you purchase or build a PC with Windows Vista Ultimate, you can use that same installation and license to install it in a virtualization environment on that same platform. That goes beyond what has been done on any other platform for virtualization, and why the limitation is specifically delineated on Vista Home:
You may not use the software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is already installed on a licensed device.
[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in the EULA in the first place.
The Vista Business/Ultimate EULA on the same topic states:
6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
This is because Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses so that you can use the same copy, legally ALSO within a virtualization environment on that same system. This is more than is possible with any other commercial OS, from a licensing perspective. The restrictions on Vista Home are ONLY restricting you from using it in a VM on the device where it's already installed. If you buy Vista Home standalone as a retail box, and it's not installed anywhere else, you are free, legally and technically, to use it in a VM to your heart's content.
It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.
Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses to also run the same licensed copy of Vista running natively on the licensed device in a virtualization environment as well.
In other words, if you purchase or build a PC with Windows Vista Ultimate, you can use that same installation and license to install it in a virtualization environment on that same platform. That goes beyond what has been done on any other platform for virtualization, and why the limitation is specifically delineated on Vista Home:
You may not use the software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is already installed on a licensed device.
[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in the EULA in the first place.
The Vista Business/Ultimate EULA on the same topic states:
6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
This is because Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses so that you can use the same copy, legally ALSO within a virtualization environment on that same system. This is more than is possible with any other commercial OS, from a licensing perspective. The restrictions on Vista Home are ONLY restricting you from using it in a VM on the device where it's already installed. If you buy Vista Home standalone as a retail box, and it's not installed anywhere else, you are free, legally and technically, to use it in a VM to your heart's content.
Raptura
Apr 22, 04:24 PM
I would be really disappointed to see a metal backing like iPod Touch has. My previous iPods from the past are so jacked up on the backside with scratches and dents. I know I'm not alone with this.
I'd prefer if the iPhone retained a glass backing like on the iPhone 4; I think it's just so sexy. But if they were going to move to metal I'd prefer an iPad-style backing.
I'd prefer if the iPhone retained a glass backing like on the iPhone 4; I think it's just so sexy. But if they were going to move to metal I'd prefer an iPad-style backing.
mplaisance
Apr 22, 06:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
I hope they keep the button. I like Ilene single buttons simplicity. My friends have android phones with touch home buttons and they tell me they always accidentally pressing them.
I hope they keep the button. I like Ilene single buttons simplicity. My friends have android phones with touch home buttons and they tell me they always accidentally pressing them.
dexthageek
Apr 13, 02:44 PM
Every time an analyst speaks, a fairy dies. :(
Keep "Clapping!'
Keep "Clapping!'
wordoflife
Apr 13, 10:41 PM
http://assets.gearlive.com/blogimages/gallery/white-black-iphone-4/white-black-iphone-4-002_medium.jpg
Wow, white looks on point. I think my next iPhone might be white.
And i'm still deciding whether I want to jump from the 3GS at this time or not. I mean, it still works.
Wow, white looks on point. I think my next iPhone might be white.
And i'm still deciding whether I want to jump from the 3GS at this time or not. I mean, it still works.
TantalizedMind
Apr 14, 04:03 PM
iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch.
iPad WiFi, iPad 3G, iPad 2 WiFi, iPad 2 3G, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, AT&T iPhone 4, Verizon iPhone 4, iPod Touch..
Don't make me sort it by different GB models also! LMAO! :cool:
iPad WiFi, iPad 3G, iPad 2 WiFi, iPad 2 3G, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, AT&T iPhone 4, Verizon iPhone 4, iPod Touch..
Don't make me sort it by different GB models also! LMAO! :cool:
Intell
Apr 26, 01:09 PM
Just a quick note: The hunter cannot protect against infections. There is no night watch. The night time lasts until I get all the needed PMs or 24 hours. Whichever comes first.
jazz1
Mar 31, 02:25 PM
Where is my paisley calendar?
Icaras
Apr 22, 04:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Uhh no. Rounded off edges are a big no-no.
Tell that to the iPad 2.
Uhh no. Rounded off edges are a big no-no.
Tell that to the iPad 2.
mrkgoo
Jul 24, 07:55 PM
I bought a Mighty Mouse when it first came out.
Personally, I love it. I do have clicking issues, but not the same as others - where others fins it accidentally left clicks when they try to right-click, I used to get right clicks when I tried left - but after a long time of use, I have learnt to use it as I need.
The scroll ball is awesome, but does seem to fail occasionally...a bit of dampness ont eh ball fixes this though.
Personally, I love it. I do have clicking issues, but not the same as others - where others fins it accidentally left clicks when they try to right-click, I used to get right clicks when I tried left - but after a long time of use, I have learnt to use it as I need.
The scroll ball is awesome, but does seem to fail occasionally...a bit of dampness ont eh ball fixes this though.
Doctor Q
Jul 24, 06:40 PM
The only reason anyone would buy this thing is because of blind Apple brand loyalty.Not quite true. Some of us bought 'em for sensible reasons: Apple products are usually of good quality, and initial reviews of this mouse were very favorable. Only later did the many reports about sticking problems show up.
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:35 AM
Dave,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
iEvolution
Apr 29, 07:37 PM
Paying less is not good. If you are a true Apple believer, you want to pay as much as possible so you can high five when Apple has record profits. It's not about the consumer, it's what's best for Apple.
Wow some people here are incredibly close minded. Nothing comes good out of being dedicated to one brand, nothing. You don't get any perks from the company, you lose out on possible better competitor products, you lose money, you lose out on knowledge of other products, etc.
Furthermore you are dedicated to a brand that is currently one of the most unethical companies out there, the only other company that compares is Sony. Don't get me wrong, I love the iPod line and I love the iTunes software (even if its bloated, management is 2nd to none for music), but the company does some shady things to save a few bucks, and go to great lengths to give the brand a positive name in the media (which includes banning certain individuals from their events if their reviews aren't what apple likes..iLounge 3rd generation shuffle for instance).
BTW, Apple's primary profits come from hardware not the music store.
I hate how slow Apple's servers on iTunes have been for the last couple years, definitely gonna have a look into amazon's store.
Wow some people here are incredibly close minded. Nothing comes good out of being dedicated to one brand, nothing. You don't get any perks from the company, you lose out on possible better competitor products, you lose money, you lose out on knowledge of other products, etc.
Furthermore you are dedicated to a brand that is currently one of the most unethical companies out there, the only other company that compares is Sony. Don't get me wrong, I love the iPod line and I love the iTunes software (even if its bloated, management is 2nd to none for music), but the company does some shady things to save a few bucks, and go to great lengths to give the brand a positive name in the media (which includes banning certain individuals from their events if their reviews aren't what apple likes..iLounge 3rd generation shuffle for instance).
BTW, Apple's primary profits come from hardware not the music store.
I hate how slow Apple's servers on iTunes have been for the last couple years, definitely gonna have a look into amazon's store.
Icaras
Apr 26, 12:33 PM
I don't know about other countries, but I've noticed so many people in America just expect almost everything to be free these days.
I mean, seriously? It's getting a little tiresome.
I mean, seriously? It's getting a little tiresome.
No comments:
Post a Comment