br0adband
Nov 7, 04:04 AM
To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant" - and yes, I've had 4 kernel panics since I got this iMac home; that's more than the number of BSODs I've had under XP in 4 years.
Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.
Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.
You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.
On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).
So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.
Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:
I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:
It just works.
Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.
bb
Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.
Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...
Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.
Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.
You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.
On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).
So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.
Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:
I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:
It just works.
Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.
bb
Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.
Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...
Crosbie
Apr 14, 02:19 PM
The link in this thread still causes me problems:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12349432
Though now Safari crashes a short time after showing the white box problem.
Anyone else able to test the YouTube link in this thread?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12349432
Though now Safari crashes a short time after showing the white box problem.
Anyone else able to test the YouTube link in this thread?
Compile 'em all
Apr 1, 06:53 AM
My baby boy just pooped and it it is just about the same color of it.:eek:
You sir, just won 9000 internets for this post. Congrats! :D
You sir, just won 9000 internets for this post. Congrats! :D
zeemeerman2
Apr 14, 05:56 AM
at a chinese plant manufacturing electronic cigs?:confused:
I think it's just a mistranslation of the speaker's first language.
So he attends at university since fall (so since september) and studies Commerce. Yet he thinks this rumor is part of a leaked advertisement and cannot comprehend why it is advertised like that.
Well, that's what I get from it anyways...
I think it's just a mistranslation of the speaker's first language.
So he attends at university since fall (so since september) and studies Commerce. Yet he thinks this rumor is part of a leaked advertisement and cannot comprehend why it is advertised like that.
Well, that's what I get from it anyways...
more...
skunk
Apr 24, 07:26 PM
And how about if she still has men's parts down there? Where does she belong then?
Padraig
Jul 12, 07:55 AM
Don't know how true this is, but if correct demonstrates MS determination to take losses to dominate the market. From Engadget,
But it gets better. To attract current iPod users Microsoft is going to let you download for free any songs you've already bought from the iTunes Music Store. They'll actually scan iTunes for purchased tracks and then automatically add those to your account. Microsoft will still have to pay the rights-holders for the songs, but they believe it'll be worth it to acquire converts to their new player.
http://www.engadget.com/page/4/
But it gets better. To attract current iPod users Microsoft is going to let you download for free any songs you've already bought from the iTunes Music Store. They'll actually scan iTunes for purchased tracks and then automatically add those to your account. Microsoft will still have to pay the rights-holders for the songs, but they believe it'll be worth it to acquire converts to their new player.
http://www.engadget.com/page/4/
more...
trainguy77
Oct 10, 05:46 PM
I am liking this upward trend we have going right now. We need to keep that up. We need major releases of folding clients to be posted on atleast page 2 if not page one to get some interest.
!� V �!
Apr 28, 05:26 PM
If you look at other photos it looks exactly the same.
That photo has a weird angle to it. You can see the other side of the white iphone.
Someone from "a" news service is bending a no story into "A Story." ;):D
That photo has a weird angle to it. You can see the other side of the white iphone.
Someone from "a" news service is bending a no story into "A Story." ;):D
more...
AtariMac
Mar 31, 10:58 AM
That looks awful.
baleensavage
Apr 22, 04:32 PM
Ugh, don't go back to that awful scratch-magnet shiny metal back. It's bad enough us iPod touch users have to deal with it. That's one of the worst designs for a handheld. The glass back was classy and made for a much nicer phone. I also can't see why Apple would take such a huge step backwards in design to make it look more like the first iPhone.
more...
Happybunny
Oct 21, 04:30 AM
Here in the Netherlands we have Sinterklaas, he comes to us first by steamship, and then on a white horse. It is that important that the TV shows him arriving direct, plus tens of thousands are on the quayside. I hope to be there this year in Harderwijk on the 13th November with my grand children.
Gifts are given on the 5th December
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/Sinterklaas_geland__359673b.jpg
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/intocht_sinterklaas_amsterdam.jpg
Gifts are given on the 5th December
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/Sinterklaas_geland__359673b.jpg
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/intocht_sinterklaas_amsterdam.jpg
fcortese
Apr 1, 08:17 PM
My 1 year-old a couple of days before his first birthday (click for larger).
http://gallery.me.com/crebelein/100053/IMG_5637/web.jpg
Hope he is doing well.
Hello all, my first post on these forums... :)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5581017226_9f0a09cd04.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61296751@N04/5581017226/)
R0010609 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61296751@N04/5581017226/) by contracteur (http://www.flickr.com/people/61296751@N04/), on Flickr
more...
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
more...
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
more...
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
http://gallery.me.com/crebelein/100053/IMG_5637/web.jpg
Hope he is doing well.
Hello all, my first post on these forums... :)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5581017226_9f0a09cd04.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61296751@N04/5581017226/)
R0010609 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61296751@N04/5581017226/) by contracteur (http://www.flickr.com/people/61296751@N04/), on Flickr
more...
Thomas Harte
Jun 6, 04:30 AM
There should be a setting something like:
- Never ask for password for purchases of $X and under.
- Always ask for password for purchases of $Y and over.
The first one would be nice so it I could set it to free and easily update my apps.
The second would help prevent cases like the OP.
Per the Apple way, it wouldn't be a user configurable setting. But otherwise, I agree.
- Never ask for password for purchases of $X and under.
- Always ask for password for purchases of $Y and over.
The first one would be nice so it I could set it to free and easily update my apps.
The second would help prevent cases like the OP.
Per the Apple way, it wouldn't be a user configurable setting. But otherwise, I agree.
kwarren
Sep 14, 09:00 PM
Yeah, um, I really, really like Threadless. And Halo. Won't have to do laundry for a month straight now! :)
Had to stock up on t-shirts when they had their $9 sale for 32 hours this past week!
Had to stock up on t-shirts when they had their $9 sale for 32 hours this past week!
more...
AppleScruff1
Apr 13, 09:09 PM
I would love to see those prices!........not really tho
They'll buy the panel from Samsung, charge double the price of everything else on the market and the sheep will be lined up for days to buy one. It will be a huge hit and Sony and Samsung will go out of business.
They'll buy the panel from Samsung, charge double the price of everything else on the market and the sheep will be lined up for days to buy one. It will be a huge hit and Sony and Samsung will go out of business.
SciFrog
Nov 23, 08:31 PM
The above is correct.
more...
marksman
Apr 19, 02:15 PM
Apple will be stupid, make their TV the same shape as the others and be sued by everyone.
Funny how it is. Apple is ultra successful, makes tons of money, and still cowers out of fear.
The fanboys feel sorry for them, and make excuses.
What a bizarre environment the little man lives in.
Welcome to Mac Rumors!
Funny how it is. Apple is ultra successful, makes tons of money, and still cowers out of fear.
The fanboys feel sorry for them, and make excuses.
What a bizarre environment the little man lives in.
Welcome to Mac Rumors!
doctorossi
Apr 14, 12:29 PM
Can anyone confirm if the 4.2.7 CDMA release contains the Safari update from 4.3?
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
martingc
Apr 14, 01:14 PM
I've just downloaded the update on my iPhone and iPad and i noticed that on the iPad (not iPhone) in the General Setings now there is now a multitouch gestures button to enable this function. It suports 4 fingers up to show the app switcher, 4 fingers to the sides to switch apps and 5 fingers to the centre to go to the home screen.
It works great!
It works great!
SciFrog
Nov 23, 03:03 PM
yeah i know. i read that they would add them, but if they haven't by now, i don't think they will
Strange it hasn't been done yet. It would help as we struggle to take on ClubLexus as they have raised their production very close to our level.
On another note, it looks like the Gulftown 6 core that will be next in the Mac Pro are screaming. It will be hard to resist getting a 12 core machine (24 with hyperthreading) unless the price is ridiculous. Should be good for 60k PPD ;)
Strange it hasn't been done yet. It would help as we struggle to take on ClubLexus as they have raised their production very close to our level.
On another note, it looks like the Gulftown 6 core that will be next in the Mac Pro are screaming. It will be hard to resist getting a 12 core machine (24 with hyperthreading) unless the price is ridiculous. Should be good for 60k PPD ;)
tny
Oct 6, 04:23 PM
You are assuming that the amount of spectrum available will never change. There's a reason they just shut off analog TV. Yes, spectrum is a finite resource, but they're shifting more to mobile voice/data very soon.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Whorehay
Sep 30, 03:35 AM
Manhattan has some crappy, crappy AT&T service. It's not even "coverage" that's the issue. 5 bars of 3G (whether I'm using a BlackBerry or iPhone)-- it just doesn't want to work. The iPhone needs some sort of compression or else it'll just bring the entire network down.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 12, 05:37 AM
Usually, when a new technology comes out from Apple like Thunderbolt, (mini display port in look a like), I usually think "Why would other "non" Apple manufactures like WD, Promise etc... adopt Thunderbolt? as USB 3.0 or eSATA is their bracket... where as Apple likes to keep to themselves only tailoring to their own devices (eg. using WDS (or extenting wireless via Airport Express), for example. is not possible unless you have Time Capsule (Apple) )
I guess I was wrong when I saw this one on MacRumors.
The major difference between TB and FW adoption is that FW was 100% Apple whereas TB was envisioned by Apple and then handed off to Intel for development and implementation.
Since Intel is a major supplier of MBs to PC box manufacturers it can more easily push TB than Apple could FW. Moreover USB 3 is an Intel creation too so it has even greater power to play puppet master.
I guess I was wrong when I saw this one on MacRumors.
The major difference between TB and FW adoption is that FW was 100% Apple whereas TB was envisioned by Apple and then handed off to Intel for development and implementation.
Since Intel is a major supplier of MBs to PC box manufacturers it can more easily push TB than Apple could FW. Moreover USB 3 is an Intel creation too so it has even greater power to play puppet master.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий