AcesHigh87
Apr 27, 11:38 AM
I don't feel like reading through 6 pages of comments but, I can attest that most retail stores will tell you to call the cops but not get involved. I've never worked fast food but have been told that from working in a drug store for several years.
At the same time, however, some common sense is needed. I'm pretty sure if I was in this situation, policy or not, I'd be stopping them. This isn't like one little slap and some yelling, this is a brutal assault. For that matter, I get the feeling that the person taking the video isn't an employee, just a hunch. If so, why the hell didn't they think to do anything but pull out their damn cell phone and video tape it? For that matter, they were laughing at one point which is just downright heartless.
At the same time, however, some common sense is needed. I'm pretty sure if I was in this situation, policy or not, I'd be stopping them. This isn't like one little slap and some yelling, this is a brutal assault. For that matter, I get the feeling that the person taking the video isn't an employee, just a hunch. If so, why the hell didn't they think to do anything but pull out their damn cell phone and video tape it? For that matter, they were laughing at one point which is just downright heartless.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 3, 01:41 AM
Do some research on what tall buildings do to cell towers/signal and the ability for your phone to handle constant hand-offs between thousands of towers. Trust me, sky scrapers make it impossible for Verizons, T-mobile, or any other carriers service to be much better than the rest. The other carriers are just better about hiding their shortcomings from the public.
HORSE *****!
I HAD NOT ONE DROPPED CALL WITH VERIZON IN 5 YEARS.
No he is right. They all struggle with sky scrapers. Verizon happens to use a stronger signal than AT&T so it cuts threw building a little better but on top of that Verizon does not have to deal with towers being over loaded by iPhone users.
Most of the drop calls happen during tower hand offs and if the tower you need to be handed off to is max out well your call gets dropped.
Now if you want example of Verizon problems I was getting dropped calls all the time for months a few years ago with verizon and dump them for sprint.
As for example of building problems on another carrier sprint I could give you a this strip on campus about 50'x50' that as soon as you walked into it your call would drop. Same area multiple sprint phones multiple calls. Just a random dead zone on campus for sprint. AT&T had at least one spot on campus that was almost the exact same way. Skyscrappers make it insane for all carriers to deal with and on top of that you have tons of tower hand offs.
HORSE *****!
I HAD NOT ONE DROPPED CALL WITH VERIZON IN 5 YEARS.
No he is right. They all struggle with sky scrapers. Verizon happens to use a stronger signal than AT&T so it cuts threw building a little better but on top of that Verizon does not have to deal with towers being over loaded by iPhone users.
Most of the drop calls happen during tower hand offs and if the tower you need to be handed off to is max out well your call gets dropped.
Now if you want example of Verizon problems I was getting dropped calls all the time for months a few years ago with verizon and dump them for sprint.
As for example of building problems on another carrier sprint I could give you a this strip on campus about 50'x50' that as soon as you walked into it your call would drop. Same area multiple sprint phones multiple calls. Just a random dead zone on campus for sprint. AT&T had at least one spot on campus that was almost the exact same way. Skyscrappers make it insane for all carriers to deal with and on top of that you have tons of tower hand offs.
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.
Zonz
Jan 1, 04:04 PM
Let me conclude with this.
I suppose I've dug myself into a little hole with my argument, and let me just clarify in saying that I DO understand the personal and social implications of obesity. And I agree with what is being said.
What I'm arguing is that none of you know this person. Therefore you cannot judge her condition. The examples I'm coming up with are far fetched yet, and I know statistically speaking she could have a mental condition, negative self image... etc... as is common with obesity. But all the toilet jokes and people who were simply outraged at how she could be so selfish were simply making me sick.
So even though I don't have the right to be the moral police, I felt like I had to intervene. If anything I'm glad that the tone of this forum has shifted towards one of consideration and thought about the implications of obesity and not just, "What a horrible person!" and "her poor toilet!". I've met many great obese people and I'm finding that there is a growing stereotype about fat people that is growing out of control. It's becoming less of a "condition" and more of a "moral deficiency."
So I concede. You guys are right, and I am wrong.
(Btw, the God vs religion thing is irrelevant to the topic, but I simply meant that when speaking about God you aren't necessarily speaking about religion. My post was sarcastic anyway, so I was just clarifying the point.)
I suppose I've dug myself into a little hole with my argument, and let me just clarify in saying that I DO understand the personal and social implications of obesity. And I agree with what is being said.
What I'm arguing is that none of you know this person. Therefore you cannot judge her condition. The examples I'm coming up with are far fetched yet, and I know statistically speaking she could have a mental condition, negative self image... etc... as is common with obesity. But all the toilet jokes and people who were simply outraged at how she could be so selfish were simply making me sick.
So even though I don't have the right to be the moral police, I felt like I had to intervene. If anything I'm glad that the tone of this forum has shifted towards one of consideration and thought about the implications of obesity and not just, "What a horrible person!" and "her poor toilet!". I've met many great obese people and I'm finding that there is a growing stereotype about fat people that is growing out of control. It's becoming less of a "condition" and more of a "moral deficiency."
So I concede. You guys are right, and I am wrong.
(Btw, the God vs religion thing is irrelevant to the topic, but I simply meant that when speaking about God you aren't necessarily speaking about religion. My post was sarcastic anyway, so I was just clarifying the point.)
Stridder44
Mar 31, 11:38 AM
I love these new UI touches.
But UI changes are not enough for me to spend $129 on alone. If it were $29 like Snow Leopard was, then that'd be different, but I highly doubt that'll happen this time around. Let's see some real features (ones that haven't been mentioned yet).
But UI changes are not enough for me to spend $129 on alone. If it were $29 like Snow Leopard was, then that'd be different, but I highly doubt that'll happen this time around. Let's see some real features (ones that haven't been mentioned yet).
Eldiablojoe
Apr 27, 01:23 PM
I was going to vote for Nies, but I'm pretty sure he's not a WW, so I'm going for -aggie-. It appears everyone else is smelling blood in the water and jumping into the feeding frenzy. I'll just keep my insights to myself for spite then.
dethmaShine
Apr 13, 11:08 AM
Cool what down ? Are you proposing my post was made out of anger ? Written text has no emotionality.
Then it has no meaning.
Honestly, that's a very stupid thing you said.
It is possible indeed, hence why I'm asking for citations to what someone posted as fact, rather than as a possibility. Citation to support the fact still has not been provided.
He did provide citation for the same; the engadget article.
But due to its inception being an Engadget based article, I wouldn't base any conclusions on that.
But yes, he did cite the argument.
Then it has no meaning.
Honestly, that's a very stupid thing you said.
It is possible indeed, hence why I'm asking for citations to what someone posted as fact, rather than as a possibility. Citation to support the fact still has not been provided.
He did provide citation for the same; the engadget article.
But due to its inception being an Engadget based article, I wouldn't base any conclusions on that.
But yes, he did cite the argument.
fila97
May 3, 08:10 AM
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
kingtj
Oct 23, 10:55 AM
From a practical standpoint, I know exactly what you're saying. But it doesn't help fix the problem. In the past, MS has implemented restrictive policies that angered enough users that they were forced to back down on them.
EG. A while back, MS took a stance that it was illegal to use an imaged installation of Windows on your PC if you didn't own a "volume license" or separate retail box license for it. If your PC came bundled with a copy of Windows on it and you blew that away in favor of your pre-made disk imaged version, they tried to say you weren't properly licensed anymore if you didn't own that second license.
This caused so many corporations to suddenly be "illegal" on thousands of PCs that it created a firestorm of protest. After that, you never really heard about the issue again. MS even started addressing the "Ghost" imaging software specifically in their tech. notes.
People who just shrug and say "Who cares? I'll just break the EULA and do things my way." just encourage MS to keep on restricting things. If you aren't the "squeaky wheel", you don't get any "oil".
I could care less what the microsoft's EULA agreement says. If I'm able to install it I could care less if it is illegal. As long as it is only on one computer then I'm doing it. And they wonder why people pirate their software...
EG. A while back, MS took a stance that it was illegal to use an imaged installation of Windows on your PC if you didn't own a "volume license" or separate retail box license for it. If your PC came bundled with a copy of Windows on it and you blew that away in favor of your pre-made disk imaged version, they tried to say you weren't properly licensed anymore if you didn't own that second license.
This caused so many corporations to suddenly be "illegal" on thousands of PCs that it created a firestorm of protest. After that, you never really heard about the issue again. MS even started addressing the "Ghost" imaging software specifically in their tech. notes.
People who just shrug and say "Who cares? I'll just break the EULA and do things my way." just encourage MS to keep on restricting things. If you aren't the "squeaky wheel", you don't get any "oil".
I could care less what the microsoft's EULA agreement says. If I'm able to install it I could care less if it is illegal. As long as it is only on one computer then I'm doing it. And they wonder why people pirate their software...
vader_slri
Apr 19, 10:25 AM
Okay, I am trying to play a theoretical "game," if we start bringing in factors such as "Apple will work it out," obviously, my whole argument is useless.
We must try to PREDICT what the next MBA will be in terms of WHAT WE HAVE currently.
You are saying that MBA are not meant for gaming and other stuff. I KNOW, i am not saying I will play crysis 2 on max settings, you are placing my argument on the extreme side.
Understand that what im saying is that nearly all of us are casual gamers. we want to play a game here or two, and as High Schooler, I will play more games.
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
If you feel so strongly against a SB update, buy the current MBA and live happily! Nobody can take that away from you. It will continue to function exactly as you expect it to, even if a SB update is released!
We must try to PREDICT what the next MBA will be in terms of WHAT WE HAVE currently.
You are saying that MBA are not meant for gaming and other stuff. I KNOW, i am not saying I will play crysis 2 on max settings, you are placing my argument on the extreme side.
Understand that what im saying is that nearly all of us are casual gamers. we want to play a game here or two, and as High Schooler, I will play more games.
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
If you feel so strongly against a SB update, buy the current MBA and live happily! Nobody can take that away from you. It will continue to function exactly as you expect it to, even if a SB update is released!
Rooskibar03
Jan 26, 12:03 PM
You're welcome. Might have to order another one before the 31st. :D
Just an FYI, item shows sold out. Missed my window...
Just an FYI, item shows sold out. Missed my window...
twoodcc
Jul 25, 10:12 AM
Never heard of the cartoon character Mighty Mouse (Here he comes to save the daaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!!!!!). Apple had to license the name from Viacom.
LOL! i remember that cartoon. haha, i think i might still have a vhs tape somewhere
LOL! i remember that cartoon. haha, i think i might still have a vhs tape somewhere
notjustjay
Mar 31, 11:13 AM
Can someone confirm there isn't going to be a to-do list in Lion? This is ridiculous!
Before I scare everyone, maybe I need to get my facts straight... is there one? I certainly couldn't find any on the iOS version, which is why I bought a program called Todo (by Appigo) to handle that functionality on my iPad. Since I'm on the go far more often than I'm at my desk, this is where I've been keeping my to-do items. That and Google Calendar.
So I guess what I'm really asking for is integrated to-do list support on the iOS calendar.
Before I scare everyone, maybe I need to get my facts straight... is there one? I certainly couldn't find any on the iOS version, which is why I bought a program called Todo (by Appigo) to handle that functionality on my iPad. Since I'm on the go far more often than I'm at my desk, this is where I've been keeping my to-do items. That and Google Calendar.
So I guess what I'm really asking for is integrated to-do list support on the iOS calendar.
wovel
Apr 28, 12:46 PM
That low price sells?
According to your past posts, selling phones at a low price ($49 in this case) is a sign of desperation, of an attempt to flood the market.
Heck, that's far cheaper than BOGO sales for other handsets where two people have sign long contracts.
Or, could it just possibly be that people aren't always swayed just by price? That the device itself could be a major factor?
Are there any carriers not giving away at least one free Android phone...
According to your past posts, selling phones at a low price ($49 in this case) is a sign of desperation, of an attempt to flood the market.
Heck, that's far cheaper than BOGO sales for other handsets where two people have sign long contracts.
Or, could it just possibly be that people aren't always swayed just by price? That the device itself could be a major factor?
Are there any carriers not giving away at least one free Android phone...
br0adband
Nov 4, 07:28 AM
Whatever dude. 2Ghz\2GB RAM\256MB Video\160GB HD and there is NOTHING instantaneous about Parallels at all. It takes anywhere from 1-2 minutes to resume a session and another 2+ minutes to suspend it. This is with multiple images, several OS X installs, and I know how to tweak Windows with the best of them. Then there is the bug where it likes to freeze the entire system when you change locations. Not always but it�s a common enough thing that I have to stop the session to change locations or risk crashing my system.
If it's taking you two minutes to resume a session and two minutes plus to suspend it, on that machine you mentioned the specs of, something is frickin' wrong with that machine.
2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:
- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11
And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.
So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.
btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.
bb
If it's taking you two minutes to resume a session and two minutes plus to suspend it, on that machine you mentioned the specs of, something is frickin' wrong with that machine.
2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:
- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11
And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.
So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.
btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.
bb
blackpond
Apr 29, 03:49 PM
Its been my observation that most of the prices on existing content was increased to 1.29. I don't have hard number to back this up, just my observation that most of the content was bumped to the higher price point from being at 0.99 before.
It's based on demand. If it's still popular its more expensive - no matter how old it is.
It's based on demand. If it's still popular its more expensive - no matter how old it is.
Apple 26.2
May 4, 06:03 AM
Interesting, but nothing new offered here.
SiliconAddict
Nov 3, 11:50 PM
Mine pops up instantly. 2.0 GHz Macbook.
Whatever dude. 2Ghz\2GB RAM\256MB Video\160GB HD and there is NOTHING instantaneous about Parallels at all. It takes anywhere from 1-2 minutes to resume a session and another 2+ minutes to suspend it. This is with multiple images, several OS X installs, and I know how to tweak Windows with the best of them. Then there is the bug where it likes to freeze the entire system when you change locations. Not always but it�s a common enough thing that I have to stop the session to change locations or risk crashing my system.
Whatever dude. 2Ghz\2GB RAM\256MB Video\160GB HD and there is NOTHING instantaneous about Parallels at all. It takes anywhere from 1-2 minutes to resume a session and another 2+ minutes to suspend it. This is with multiple images, several OS X installs, and I know how to tweak Windows with the best of them. Then there is the bug where it likes to freeze the entire system when you change locations. Not always but it�s a common enough thing that I have to stop the session to change locations or risk crashing my system.
beebler
Apr 22, 10:32 AM
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 don't know much about chips but as disheartening as it may be, 4G won't be up at a good level for a while anyway.
I don't know much about chips but as disheartening as it may be, 4G won't be up at a good level for a while anyway.
Westside guy
Oct 23, 11:01 AM
Doesn't affect me either way - I'm staying away from Vista for as long as I can. It took them what - 5 years? - to get XP to some reasonable semblance of semi-security. Even now it's no great shakes; it just means some South Korean kid can't pull another large-scale Blaster type of hack.
Steve Gibson (http://grc.com/) (love him or hate him) reports that Vista's rewritten network stack, through the various betas, has been shown vulnerable to a number of the exploits that more mature stacks (e.g. BSD's stack, the one MS used to quietly use) have fixed over the past decade! It just seems ludicrous.
Steve Gibson (http://grc.com/) (love him or hate him) reports that Vista's rewritten network stack, through the various betas, has been shown vulnerable to a number of the exploits that more mature stacks (e.g. BSD's stack, the one MS used to quietly use) have fixed over the past decade! It just seems ludicrous.
Moonjumper
Apr 14, 11:04 AM
It has gone now, but I found it interesting that it was listing this for my Universal iOS game TiltStorm. It has touch and accelerometer control options, so it wouldn't be suitable as is for a touch control Mac. It is also a portrait orientated game, so isn't going to fill a widescreen monitor.
I think there will be much tighter iOS - OS X integration with Lion. I wonder if it will mean it can run iOS apps, possibly in a virtual environment, with an iOS device acting as the controller. All it would need is an Apple app on the device. The Mac sends the screen image to the device so that you can see where to touch, etc. And gets the control inputs in return.
There would be several benefits. You can run the app at a larger size on the Mac screen. Older devices could possibly run apps at full speed as the bulk of the work is offloaded to the Mac. And you could access all apps in your App Store library while in wi-fi range.
I think there will be much tighter iOS - OS X integration with Lion. I wonder if it will mean it can run iOS apps, possibly in a virtual environment, with an iOS device acting as the controller. All it would need is an Apple app on the device. The Mac sends the screen image to the device so that you can see where to touch, etc. And gets the control inputs in return.
There would be several benefits. You can run the app at a larger size on the Mac screen. Older devices could possibly run apps at full speed as the bulk of the work is offloaded to the Mac. And you could access all apps in your App Store library while in wi-fi range.
Don Kosak
Nov 10, 04:56 PM
What's with all the developers that won't do Universal Apps?
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Nord
May 4, 01:58 AM
Good so.
It's the return of the Mac, Steve Jobs said it so, so let's focus on Macs now and iPhone in second plan for this year at least; it's already a huge success, so...
It's the return of the Mac, Steve Jobs said it so, so let's focus on Macs now and iPhone in second plan for this year at least; it's already a huge success, so...
ULFoaf
Apr 12, 12:55 PM
There was a recent announcement by Sony saying their deliveries to Apple for an 8MP camera would be delayed due to conditions in Japan. I've read other articles suggesting other iPhone components may be in short supply.
The disaster in Japan may have an impact on their release schedule. It might have been tight before, then the earthquake killed it.
The disaster in Japan may have an impact on their release schedule. It might have been tight before, then the earthquake killed it.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario