OllyW
Apr 12, 12:08 PM
How about, "we want to invest in the US!"
Sheeeez!
Don't worry.
If the Chinese economy keeps growing at the same rate over the next decade they will be setting up manufacturing plants in the USA to take advantage of the cheap American labour. ;)
Sheeeez!
Don't worry.
If the Chinese economy keeps growing at the same rate over the next decade they will be setting up manufacturing plants in the USA to take advantage of the cheap American labour. ;)
SuperJudge
Oct 24, 09:43 AM
Actually I might KILL for that Extended Keyboard II.:p
You're not the only one! :p
You're not the only one! :p
AidenShaw
Sep 6, 08:29 AM
When they come out and we both buy one, can we have a little MacRumours party topic? We can dance all night long! ;)
I would be so happy!
I'll wait for the Media Centre Edition to ship - that's one of the "super secret" parts of OSX 10.5 that hasn't been shown.
I would be so happy!
I'll wait for the Media Centre Edition to ship - that's one of the "super secret" parts of OSX 10.5 that hasn't been shown.
NOV
Nov 27, 03:59 PM
My point is, the ping-pong effect, when it was used, was deliberate. It does sound strange now, but I remember when these albums came out people listened to them on headphones and thought the effect was cool.
I'm no Beatles historian by any means, but correct me if I'm wrong: weren't the first albums recorded in mono? The stereo versions were later, rather crude simulations of stereo, which is why they never made it to CD.
Yes almost every release in the Beatles era was intended for mono. Stereo releases were made years later and the wide effect was partly due to the fact that these songs were mastered from 2 tracks and because the music was recorded to one track and the vocals to the other, well there was no really other way to get stereo...
I'm no Beatles historian by any means, but correct me if I'm wrong: weren't the first albums recorded in mono? The stereo versions were later, rather crude simulations of stereo, which is why they never made it to CD.
Yes almost every release in the Beatles era was intended for mono. Stereo releases were made years later and the wide effect was partly due to the fact that these songs were mastered from 2 tracks and because the music was recorded to one track and the vocals to the other, well there was no really other way to get stereo...
LaMerVipere
Sep 12, 05:17 PM
iTunes 7 is ugly.
And so is its icon.
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/5268/animpukebz9.gif
And so is its icon.
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/5268/animpukebz9.gif
aristobrat
Sep 6, 09:03 AM
But you don't get the wired keyboard/mouse if you do that. In other words, the $60 is really more like $100 with a $40 credit for the wired kb/mouse.
Isn't a wired keyboard required when initially setting up the computer?
Isn't a wired keyboard required when initially setting up the computer?
p0intblank
Aug 3, 04:06 PM
Oh ya... he's something cheesie... this has been on my mind for a while. In january, Steve demoed GarageBand and showed how to make PodCast. He did that fake podcast and said 'Hi this is steve, and this is my Super secret apple PodCast' then he proceded to make jokes about the next iPod... he said the next iPod coming out would have a 10 inch screen and weigh 8 pounds.
Well... Tuesday is 8/10
Remember 2 years ago when Jobs demoed Spotlight... he searched for 'Paris' then searched for iMac. Sure enough... the iMac G5 was released at Paris.
I just thought that was interesting.
That's pretty cool. But one thing... 8/10 is Thursday, not Tuesday. And the keynote is given on Monday, the 7th.
Well... Tuesday is 8/10
Remember 2 years ago when Jobs demoed Spotlight... he searched for 'Paris' then searched for iMac. Sure enough... the iMac G5 was released at Paris.
I just thought that was interesting.
That's pretty cool. But one thing... 8/10 is Thursday, not Tuesday. And the keynote is given on Monday, the 7th.
mscriv
Apr 7, 07:07 PM
This is not true. There is no specific assertion in the Old Testament of any triune nature of god.
I could type up a bunch of stuff, but this website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html) does a good job of covering all the bases regarding our difference of opinion on this matter. Here's two quick excerpts:
Jews say that the Shema (pronounced Shmah), "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"1 contradicts the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God. In addition, there are a number of other verses that proclaim that God is one (see God is One). However, the triunity of God is taught throughout the Old Testament, including the Shema! How can a statement of oneness imply plurality? The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates compound unity of oneness.
and
Some of the verses above include all members of the triunity (Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 48:16, and Isaiah 61:1). Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons.
Remember what I said in the beginning. Complete understanding of the old testament comes through knowledge gained by the revelation of the new testament. They really can't be separated in terms of understanding the whole of God's message and work throughout history. Additionally, for the average person (who cannot read Hebrew and is not familiar with Jewish history and doctrine) it could be difficult to see the trinity in the old testament. That's why I suggest to people that they invest in a study Bible, possibly a Bible Encyclopedia, and some commentaries. These additional tools can help bring out the contextual clues provided by the original languages, the historical context, and the skill of cross referencing within the Bible.
Of course not any interpretation is valid; however, the Bible is very complex and contradicts itself in places. There is no set interpretation that can said to be right, rather a spectrum that can be justified. "Clear" is not a word I would use.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The Bible does not contradict itself in it's overall message of God's revelation of himself and plan for restoring the relationship with man that was destroyed by sin. Sure there are differences of application and interpretation regarding secondary matters (food laws, sexuality, alcohol, etc. etc.) and that is why we have different denominations within the Christian faith. However, the primary matter of who God is, how he dealt with the problem of sin, and how he we are to treat one another is clear and without contradiction. That is why I feel confident in telling you that Westboro is "off the mark" because they are not following Christ's example with how they treat their fellow man and how they represent God to others.
I realize that, to you, what I'm about to say might be viewed as an issue of semantics or "word manipulation", but to a genuine follower of Christ there is no such thing as "my interpretation". I believe what God says in his word and if I am confused about something I look to other parts of scripture to help me get at the correct interpretation of what is confusing me. You see it doesn't matter what I think or what I wish it would say, I come to the Bible with no preconceived notions and let it stand on it's own.
This is obviously where we part ways. For me the Bible is the product of man. Nothing more.
I understand. In most, if not all, of these discussions the eventual impasse that arises is centered on the issue of faith. Some choose to believe, some don't. Some are open to putting God to the test, some are not.
I could type up a bunch of stuff, but this website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html) does a good job of covering all the bases regarding our difference of opinion on this matter. Here's two quick excerpts:
Jews say that the Shema (pronounced Shmah), "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"1 contradicts the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God. In addition, there are a number of other verses that proclaim that God is one (see God is One). However, the triunity of God is taught throughout the Old Testament, including the Shema! How can a statement of oneness imply plurality? The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates compound unity of oneness.
and
Some of the verses above include all members of the triunity (Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 48:16, and Isaiah 61:1). Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons.
Remember what I said in the beginning. Complete understanding of the old testament comes through knowledge gained by the revelation of the new testament. They really can't be separated in terms of understanding the whole of God's message and work throughout history. Additionally, for the average person (who cannot read Hebrew and is not familiar with Jewish history and doctrine) it could be difficult to see the trinity in the old testament. That's why I suggest to people that they invest in a study Bible, possibly a Bible Encyclopedia, and some commentaries. These additional tools can help bring out the contextual clues provided by the original languages, the historical context, and the skill of cross referencing within the Bible.
Of course not any interpretation is valid; however, the Bible is very complex and contradicts itself in places. There is no set interpretation that can said to be right, rather a spectrum that can be justified. "Clear" is not a word I would use.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The Bible does not contradict itself in it's overall message of God's revelation of himself and plan for restoring the relationship with man that was destroyed by sin. Sure there are differences of application and interpretation regarding secondary matters (food laws, sexuality, alcohol, etc. etc.) and that is why we have different denominations within the Christian faith. However, the primary matter of who God is, how he dealt with the problem of sin, and how he we are to treat one another is clear and without contradiction. That is why I feel confident in telling you that Westboro is "off the mark" because they are not following Christ's example with how they treat their fellow man and how they represent God to others.
I realize that, to you, what I'm about to say might be viewed as an issue of semantics or "word manipulation", but to a genuine follower of Christ there is no such thing as "my interpretation". I believe what God says in his word and if I am confused about something I look to other parts of scripture to help me get at the correct interpretation of what is confusing me. You see it doesn't matter what I think or what I wish it would say, I come to the Bible with no preconceived notions and let it stand on it's own.
This is obviously where we part ways. For me the Bible is the product of man. Nothing more.
I understand. In most, if not all, of these discussions the eventual impasse that arises is centered on the issue of faith. Some choose to believe, some don't. Some are open to putting God to the test, some are not.
iGav
Sep 13, 09:08 AM
I think they've ruined it myself. *sniff sniff*
macUser2007
Nov 4, 02:25 PM
...
Did you not notice in those numbers that FLASH doesn't work well on ALL MACS ON ALL BROWSERS ??? And FLASH is the reason for crashes on both POWERPC and INTEL Macs, even brand new Macs, from what I'm reading in other threads here on MacRumors.
....
Please people, think before you put your feet in your mouths.
Uhm, you are a bit confused.
First, Flash works just fine on most modern Macs. The only noticeable issue I see is, that on a Mac Mini C2D 2.0GHz and a Mac Book C2D 2.0GHz the fans go crazy when viewing Flash.
The problem is, that Flash in OS X requires much higher CPU exertion, than Flash in Windows. But also, in my experience, running Flash in Safari pushes the CPU significantly harder, than running Flash in Firefox, Camino or even Chrome (which is also a Webkit browser.) See this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8739278&postcount=427) for exact numbers.
Which tells me, that Apple has done a poor job of getting Safari to work well with Flash.
In addition, even if Adobe is lazy, obtuse, incompetent, or whatever you want to believe they are, during all these years, Apple could have dedicated a competent employee, to guide Adobe and help make Flash work better on OS X. Any normal business would have made this effort, if they thought it was a problem worth investing in. But I bet, that Apple figures that most users don't even realize that there is a high CPU load, and of the once who do, at least some will be dumb enough to just blame Flash for everything.
BTW, Safari has major issues with Java stuff as well, and most Safari crashes I had in OS 10.5.x, were due to that, not Flash.
As to the iPhone, the issue is most likely Apple's reluctance to open the door to Flash apps competition to its own Applications Store. I am certain, that Apple will have Flash on the iPhone, once it starts losing sales to the new crop of Androids coming up.
Did you not notice in those numbers that FLASH doesn't work well on ALL MACS ON ALL BROWSERS ??? And FLASH is the reason for crashes on both POWERPC and INTEL Macs, even brand new Macs, from what I'm reading in other threads here on MacRumors.
....
Please people, think before you put your feet in your mouths.
Uhm, you are a bit confused.
First, Flash works just fine on most modern Macs. The only noticeable issue I see is, that on a Mac Mini C2D 2.0GHz and a Mac Book C2D 2.0GHz the fans go crazy when viewing Flash.
The problem is, that Flash in OS X requires much higher CPU exertion, than Flash in Windows. But also, in my experience, running Flash in Safari pushes the CPU significantly harder, than running Flash in Firefox, Camino or even Chrome (which is also a Webkit browser.) See this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8739278&postcount=427) for exact numbers.
Which tells me, that Apple has done a poor job of getting Safari to work well with Flash.
In addition, even if Adobe is lazy, obtuse, incompetent, or whatever you want to believe they are, during all these years, Apple could have dedicated a competent employee, to guide Adobe and help make Flash work better on OS X. Any normal business would have made this effort, if they thought it was a problem worth investing in. But I bet, that Apple figures that most users don't even realize that there is a high CPU load, and of the once who do, at least some will be dumb enough to just blame Flash for everything.
BTW, Safari has major issues with Java stuff as well, and most Safari crashes I had in OS 10.5.x, were due to that, not Flash.
As to the iPhone, the issue is most likely Apple's reluctance to open the door to Flash apps competition to its own Applications Store. I am certain, that Apple will have Flash on the iPhone, once it starts losing sales to the new crop of Androids coming up.
henhowc
Nov 2, 07:10 PM
Flash already runs like ass in Mac OS and Adobe doesn't seem to care about that. I couldn't imagine it running well on the iPhone.
SPEEDwithJJ
Oct 25, 09:23 AM
Omg That case is FANTASTIC! Where did you get it???
I believe she mentioned a few weeks ago that she bought that case from Staples.
I believe she mentioned a few weeks ago that she bought that case from Staples.
Lesser Evets
Apr 14, 09:24 AM
...the rest of the industry has been mired in a slump reportedly due in no small part to a shift in consumer interest to new media tablets dominated by Apple's iPad.
Over a year ago there were a lot of crazy kooks laughing at me for saying the desktop and laptops were "yesterday's" designs. That people wanted true portability...
There's the proof.
Once the iPad becomes beefy enough to be like a laptop (and it's getting close already), it will take over most of the computer sales. It's perfect in most ways for most people--just needs higher res, more memory, more connectivity, and stronger procession.
Over a year ago there were a lot of crazy kooks laughing at me for saying the desktop and laptops were "yesterday's" designs. That people wanted true portability...
There's the proof.
Once the iPad becomes beefy enough to be like a laptop (and it's getting close already), it will take over most of the computer sales. It's perfect in most ways for most people--just needs higher res, more memory, more connectivity, and stronger procession.
wronski
Sep 22, 03:04 PM
Umm, screw Walmart, who shops there anyway?
zildjansg
Oct 16, 02:11 AM
No sir. Only the vertical screen is connected to the MBP via a Monoprice Miniport to HMDI connection. The other two screens are connected via Dual Link DVI to my PC that you can kinda see under the table (green lights).
oh I see,thanks
oh I see,thanks
coldpower27
Mar 31, 10:35 AM
I don't have a classic, but I'd like to associate myself with the people talking about how hilarious the old thread is. Also, here's a repost of Steve introducing the original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0SVBCJqLs
I was 17 in senior in high school when iPod was introduced, though I don't think I was even aware of it. I had a friend that year who had some kind of horrible "mp3 player" and the next year when I moved into my college dorm someone on my floor had an iPod so I played with one for the first time. My first one was the light blue first-gen mini which I bought sometime in 2004 (which still works...I gave it to my mother when I replaced it with an iPhone on launch day 2007). When my crappy Dell laptop that had been my high school graduation present died a few months later, the iPod convinced me to get my first Mac.
I hope they don't discontinue the classic just for the nostalgia factor =)
My first MP3 player was this thing from the link below 20GB for $100 not bad at the time.. but had the weakness of a HD base drive and so when I did cold weather running the thing would freeze at times...
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/tscc-clearance-20-gb-mp4-player-w-1-8-screen-99-a-496414/
Evnetually I upgraded or well got another MP3 player in July 2008 which was back then a Nokia N95 8GB on a HUP of my line... that was much better as it had speakers and was based on Flash Memory...
October rolls around and I buy a 2nd hand Touch Gen 1 32GB for $280 with a Leather Case much better user interface and much higher capacity... (this is my first iPod)
Next year in September 2009 I get the 64GB Touch Gen 3 for much faster ARM Cortex A8 processors and higher capacity... which is my current MP3 player.. though it also serves as a casual gaming device though...
Somewhere along the way I picked up a Shuffle for running only as it was on sale for $35 or so... very cheap investment.
Didn't upgrade to Touch Gen 4... as the capacity didn't increase...and the CPU speed only marginally improved...plus they only kept 256MB of RAM..probably won't upgrade to Touch Gen 5 as I have an iPad 2 which probably has identical hardware to a Touch Gen 5, I promised myself I won't ugrade my MP3 player till they give a capacity increase to 128GB.. or the hardware inside is improved enough to make it worthwhile..
So yeah I think with my Gen 1 32GB as entry into the Apple World.. over time i have acquired more Apple Devices as I now have:
iPod Shuffle
iPod Touch Gen 1 32GB, Gen 3 64GB
MacBook Pro 13" Mid 2009
White WiFi iPad 2 64GB...
I was 17 in senior in high school when iPod was introduced, though I don't think I was even aware of it. I had a friend that year who had some kind of horrible "mp3 player" and the next year when I moved into my college dorm someone on my floor had an iPod so I played with one for the first time. My first one was the light blue first-gen mini which I bought sometime in 2004 (which still works...I gave it to my mother when I replaced it with an iPhone on launch day 2007). When my crappy Dell laptop that had been my high school graduation present died a few months later, the iPod convinced me to get my first Mac.
I hope they don't discontinue the classic just for the nostalgia factor =)
My first MP3 player was this thing from the link below 20GB for $100 not bad at the time.. but had the weakness of a HD base drive and so when I did cold weather running the thing would freeze at times...
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/tscc-clearance-20-gb-mp4-player-w-1-8-screen-99-a-496414/
Evnetually I upgraded or well got another MP3 player in July 2008 which was back then a Nokia N95 8GB on a HUP of my line... that was much better as it had speakers and was based on Flash Memory...
October rolls around and I buy a 2nd hand Touch Gen 1 32GB for $280 with a Leather Case much better user interface and much higher capacity... (this is my first iPod)
Next year in September 2009 I get the 64GB Touch Gen 3 for much faster ARM Cortex A8 processors and higher capacity... which is my current MP3 player.. though it also serves as a casual gaming device though...
Somewhere along the way I picked up a Shuffle for running only as it was on sale for $35 or so... very cheap investment.
Didn't upgrade to Touch Gen 4... as the capacity didn't increase...and the CPU speed only marginally improved...plus they only kept 256MB of RAM..probably won't upgrade to Touch Gen 5 as I have an iPad 2 which probably has identical hardware to a Touch Gen 5, I promised myself I won't ugrade my MP3 player till they give a capacity increase to 128GB.. or the hardware inside is improved enough to make it worthwhile..
So yeah I think with my Gen 1 32GB as entry into the Apple World.. over time i have acquired more Apple Devices as I now have:
iPod Shuffle
iPod Touch Gen 1 32GB, Gen 3 64GB
MacBook Pro 13" Mid 2009
White WiFi iPad 2 64GB...
MacRumors
Sep 4, 06:30 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
A number of recent reports have claimed that September 12th (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060831122800.shtml) will bring an Apple media event with iMac updates.
ThinkSecret now reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609sept12event.html) that Apple's September 12th media event will also introduce a 2nd generation iPod Nano and an updated 5G iPod alongside upgraded iMacs.
According to the rumor site the new iPod nano will feature larger storage capacities as well as multiple colors in a metal finish. Meanwhile, the new full-size iPod will simply sport upgraded capacities at the same price point. ThinkSecret does not expect the long rumored touch-screen video iPod until but does expect the introduction of the iTunes Movie Store at this event.
A number of recent reports have claimed that September 12th (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060831122800.shtml) will bring an Apple media event with iMac updates.
ThinkSecret now reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609sept12event.html) that Apple's September 12th media event will also introduce a 2nd generation iPod Nano and an updated 5G iPod alongside upgraded iMacs.
According to the rumor site the new iPod nano will feature larger storage capacities as well as multiple colors in a metal finish. Meanwhile, the new full-size iPod will simply sport upgraded capacities at the same price point. ThinkSecret does not expect the long rumored touch-screen video iPod until but does expect the introduction of the iTunes Movie Store at this event.
e-coli
Oct 13, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Nipsy
Nipsy, while I know you are simply trying to defend your viewpoint (as we all should), you have a very simplistic view of a computers role in society. This is a tragic flaw with all Mac users. Running a piece of software in "emulation" is a poor example of compatibility. It's like having to buy an external drive for your portable computer. It's cumbersome, hardly ideal, and defeats the purpose.
The problem with Apple simple. They have no enterprise strategy. They have no muscle to get developers to begin including Macs in custom software solutions, database integration, and web-services compatibility. Apple is totally missing the point, and doesn't understand the place of the computer in business and (this is the sad one) education.
So, Apple has the Xserve, right? Huge dismal failure for them. They are giving hardware to Universities, but they're not leveraging their weight to get software and datablase companies on board to write enterprise-wide server-based applications. A good example: some universities are in the process of migrating all their research to secure server farms, and interconnecting them nationwide to increase the pool of information available to researchers. This means that different applications, different file types, and different methods of gathering that information (such as a custom-written piece of software that, say, reads indentity cards or thumb-print records) need to become recognizeable, retrieveable, and editable from any location. Or what if libraries wanted to interconnect, creating a real-time updated database of all published works and periodicals known to mankind. They need to be able to trade data, and allow data to be submitted by individual users (such as a publication written by an independent party).
These are great examples of how the world is becoming more interdependent, and the personal computer is becoming merely a gateway to more information, applications and services. It's also a great way of illustrating how Apple is missing the boat entirely. They have made no such moves at the university (or even lower education) level. They have no plan (or so it seems) for the time when data unity is going to becom an essential element of the computing environement. They are making a wonderful move with embracing open standards, but they need to drive enterprise-level development. They need to sell solutions to the enterprises now, and make sure their technology is implemented, instead of trying to retrofit Mac-compatibility into an implemented solution. By then it will be too late, and the Mac platform will become obsolete.
Nipsy, while I know you are simply trying to defend your viewpoint (as we all should), you have a very simplistic view of a computers role in society. This is a tragic flaw with all Mac users. Running a piece of software in "emulation" is a poor example of compatibility. It's like having to buy an external drive for your portable computer. It's cumbersome, hardly ideal, and defeats the purpose.
The problem with Apple simple. They have no enterprise strategy. They have no muscle to get developers to begin including Macs in custom software solutions, database integration, and web-services compatibility. Apple is totally missing the point, and doesn't understand the place of the computer in business and (this is the sad one) education.
So, Apple has the Xserve, right? Huge dismal failure for them. They are giving hardware to Universities, but they're not leveraging their weight to get software and datablase companies on board to write enterprise-wide server-based applications. A good example: some universities are in the process of migrating all their research to secure server farms, and interconnecting them nationwide to increase the pool of information available to researchers. This means that different applications, different file types, and different methods of gathering that information (such as a custom-written piece of software that, say, reads indentity cards or thumb-print records) need to become recognizeable, retrieveable, and editable from any location. Or what if libraries wanted to interconnect, creating a real-time updated database of all published works and periodicals known to mankind. They need to be able to trade data, and allow data to be submitted by individual users (such as a publication written by an independent party).
These are great examples of how the world is becoming more interdependent, and the personal computer is becoming merely a gateway to more information, applications and services. It's also a great way of illustrating how Apple is missing the boat entirely. They have made no such moves at the university (or even lower education) level. They have no plan (or so it seems) for the time when data unity is going to becom an essential element of the computing environement. They are making a wonderful move with embracing open standards, but they need to drive enterprise-level development. They need to sell solutions to the enterprises now, and make sure their technology is implemented, instead of trying to retrofit Mac-compatibility into an implemented solution. By then it will be too late, and the Mac platform will become obsolete.
AlaskaMoose
Mar 10, 10:37 PM
Auroras in the interior of Alaska last night (03/09/2011).
Tikina 10-16mm f/2.8 wide open, 400 ISO, 15-second exposure. The purplish cast is caused by moon and other lights.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Space/Auroras%2003092011/IMG_4821_03092011.jpg
Tikina 10-16mm f/2.8 wide open, 400 ISO, 15-second exposure. The purplish cast is caused by moon and other lights.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Space/Auroras%2003092011/IMG_4821_03092011.jpg
MacSA
Sep 4, 02:45 PM
What I need is a new MBP refresh with 160gig hard drive and no quality issues. A better GPU would be nice also.
But a new iPod nano sound great since my current one is scratched beyond recognition.
My wish list, which given it's been forever since Apple has updated the nano, shouldn't be too pie-in-the-sky:
1. 12 gigs
2. 20+ hour battery life
3. Scratch resistent
Battery life is the biggest issue with the iPod for me, Apple really need to work on it with the next updates.
But a new iPod nano sound great since my current one is scratched beyond recognition.
My wish list, which given it's been forever since Apple has updated the nano, shouldn't be too pie-in-the-sky:
1. 12 gigs
2. 20+ hour battery life
3. Scratch resistent
Battery life is the biggest issue with the iPod for me, Apple really need to work on it with the next updates.
MacGeek50
Mar 25, 01:44 PM
That's ok that Verizon iPhone isn't getting love. It gives a chance to get all the bugs out for us :D:apple:
gekko513
Aug 2, 07:52 PM
Can't get the video to play right now, but the text sounds like Atheros writes the drivers for the built in Airport.
Sounds like a protocol bug to me if it works on different platforms and different vendors.
Hm, perhaps, the article is a bit vague on the subject.
Apple -- like many computer manufacturers -- outsources the development of its wireless device drivers to third parties. In Apple's case, the developer in question is Atheros, a company that devises drivers for a number of different wireless cards, each designed with drivers specific to the operating systems on which they will be used.
You're right, they make it sound like Atheros also writes the drivers for the built in Airport, but it doesn't say so specifically.
OS X ships with lots of default drivers for third party hardware, external wireless cards too, I'd imagine, and those could be the one we're talking about here.
Isn't the internal wireless device made by Intel? It's not sure Apple and Intel needs the help from Atheros to get drivers for that.
But even what the article says, I don't see why the demo would use a 3rd party wireless card if they could just as well have attacked the built in Airport.
Sounds like a protocol bug to me if it works on different platforms and different vendors.
Hm, perhaps, the article is a bit vague on the subject.
Apple -- like many computer manufacturers -- outsources the development of its wireless device drivers to third parties. In Apple's case, the developer in question is Atheros, a company that devises drivers for a number of different wireless cards, each designed with drivers specific to the operating systems on which they will be used.
You're right, they make it sound like Atheros also writes the drivers for the built in Airport, but it doesn't say so specifically.
OS X ships with lots of default drivers for third party hardware, external wireless cards too, I'd imagine, and those could be the one we're talking about here.
Isn't the internal wireless device made by Intel? It's not sure Apple and Intel needs the help from Atheros to get drivers for that.
But even what the article says, I don't see why the demo would use a 3rd party wireless card if they could just as well have attacked the built in Airport.
Pulpdiction
Mar 25, 03:03 PM
I just keep getting the -3259 error whenever I try to update
sarge
Apr 11, 09:37 AM
Don't worry about it. The guys who can't afford to pay for it and pirate it are usually the folks who just want to "hoard" it rather than use it. If they had any talent to begin with, they'd be making enough money with the tool where the cost of it would be meaningless anyway. ;)
I can't count the number of people I've met whose livelihoods are made as graphic artists or photographers and are using pirated software. Hard for me to see any justification in that...
I can't count the number of people I've met whose livelihoods are made as graphic artists or photographers and are using pirated software. Hard for me to see any justification in that...
