ToXicWaSTe
Oct 28, 07:47 PM
So, maybe i'm just crazy or something but i really want to try this. I've been waiting to get a Apple laptop some time now and i think this would be a great intoduction to OSX.
And now somebody is probably thinking im going to do this the illegal way.. But NO, several of my friends run OSX so no problem in getting OSX.
I just need help with the install and stuff, so hoped someone else was lose minded enough to help...
First off i have....
P4 (Northwood) 2.66Ghz, 533Mhz FSB, stepping 7 revision c1
Im not sure but think it supports: PAE, SSE, SSE2, MMX
So what build am i to use, so far as i can see it should be 10.4.6 or 10.4.5???
And now somebody is probably thinking im going to do this the illegal way.. But NO, several of my friends run OSX so no problem in getting OSX.
I just need help with the install and stuff, so hoped someone else was lose minded enough to help...
First off i have....
P4 (Northwood) 2.66Ghz, 533Mhz FSB, stepping 7 revision c1
Im not sure but think it supports: PAE, SSE, SSE2, MMX
So what build am i to use, so far as i can see it should be 10.4.6 or 10.4.5???
someguy
Jan 12, 09:40 AM
Wow, I just watched the keynote and my god this guy is hard to stand. I've watched previous keynotes and he never seemed this bad. The charisma he's displayed in the past has been replaced with smugness. He acted like the iPhone was the second coming of christ and we were so lucky that he existed to bring it upon us.
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given. No hardware updates. No 10.5 preview. Not even iLife and iWork '07! Plus, very people I know are going to be interested in spending $600 + $60 a month or more to use this phone while plenty of us would love to spend $300 or $400 or even more on a full-screen video iPod. God, I wish this keynote was all some nightmare and in the real one Apple actually gave us something we wanted.
This may have already been said, I haven't read this thread because this topic has been done to death IMO, but I sense more arrogance in your single post than in all of Steve's keynotes combined.
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given. No hardware updates. No 10.5 preview. Not even iLife and iWork '07! Plus, very people I know are going to be interested in spending $600 + $60 a month or more to use this phone while plenty of us would love to spend $300 or $400 or even more on a full-screen video iPod. God, I wish this keynote was all some nightmare and in the real one Apple actually gave us something we wanted.
This may have already been said, I haven't read this thread because this topic has been done to death IMO, but I sense more arrogance in your single post than in all of Steve's keynotes combined.
BRLawyer
Sep 25, 03:43 PM
Right, a product in development since 2002 (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/) was a copy of a product released in 2005 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well, it's funny that you make a comparison between the "development" of one and the "release" of another...as if Apple started Aperture some days ago as well...:rolleyes:
Well, it's funny that you make a comparison between the "development" of one and the "release" of another...as if Apple started Aperture some days ago as well...:rolleyes:
hancock
Mar 17, 01:57 PM
When does apple charge your credit card for a purchase? I ordered my wifi 64gb iPad 2 on the day of and used a $450 gift card plus my credit card. The order has gone through and I have tracking info for the case I ordered but not the iPad. The total was $829 but I still have yet to be charged the remaining balance. Have they forgotten to charge me or does it not charge until the iPad actually ships?
thanks
thanks
tkermit
Apr 5, 03:27 PM
That's so awesome! :D
NOT! :rolleyes:
NOT! :rolleyes:
lostontheisland
Apr 5, 03:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
no no i think you will find buying an iPad 2 for over �600 and having to wait over a month for it to be delivered is top of the list!
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
no no i think you will find buying an iPad 2 for over �600 and having to wait over a month for it to be delivered is top of the list!
deathcab4xtina
Mar 17, 01:07 PM
you're a thief.
+1
+1
MistaBungle
Apr 8, 07:07 PM
I wonder if this "delay from the vendor" could be somehow tied into the possibly of that MobileMe announcement that seems to be ever so pending.
iJohnHenry
Apr 18, 07:43 PM
Likewise with the Jews perhaps? :rolleyes:
Without any doubt, whatsoever.
You face the likelihood of extinction, and see how you respond.
Jews are the best example of 'survivors' on the planet at the moment.
IMNSHO.
Without any doubt, whatsoever.
You face the likelihood of extinction, and see how you respond.
Jews are the best example of 'survivors' on the planet at the moment.
IMNSHO.
Abstract
Sep 25, 10:29 PM
While I like Aperture's ability to "catalogue" better than Lightroom, I wouldn't choose Aperture over Lightroom right now just because it's better at importing from my camera and "cataloguing" --- not unless I take 500-1000 photos at a time. Lightroom can sort, although I don't like the UI as much. I like Lightroom right now because while not as fantastic as Aperture at sorting, etc, it's much much better at pp. I have literally SAVED a fantastic RAW photo of my girlfriend in tricky lighting with just the editing tools in Lightroom, and I surely could not do that with Aperture.
Lightroom is also faster.
So Aperture has fantastic sorting and cataloguing for those who take >300 photos, but rather poor at post-production (not much editing, and quite slow at what it CAN do).
Mitchell Johnson and his Tatts
bowler Mitchell Johnson,
august Mitchell+johnson
mitchell johnson hotty
bowler Mitchell Johnson,
Mitchell Johnson Cricketer
spell Mitchell+johnson
Mitchell Johnson having a
mitchell johnson tattoo
Lightroom is also faster.
So Aperture has fantastic sorting and cataloguing for those who take >300 photos, but rather poor at post-production (not much editing, and quite slow at what it CAN do).
OdduWon
Oct 10, 08:41 PM
yes, I hope it's true.
I have the gut feeling that Apple is holding off until end of October to:
• first, sell as many ipods as they can
• wait for the Zune
• have a special event for the Video ipod
• have momentum for the Xmas season
I look forward a 120gig drive nd a way to input data on the road ala PDA. that would be very nice.
if apple dosen't let zune come out first, it will be funny. Ms is all counting days and hopeing apple has already show it's hand w/ 5.5, then a day before..bam. apple will release the wonderpod and all will be well.
i agree also that this release would require an event. the new comming weeks may produce silent Mb Mbp upgrades with shuffle/ xserve if were lucky. so i dont think it will be october for wonderpod. before nov 14?
also zune has a lot more going on in the device so people and developers will like it. ipod needs to add some pda conviences to "keep up" with the zune.
I have the gut feeling that Apple is holding off until end of October to:
• first, sell as many ipods as they can
• wait for the Zune
• have a special event for the Video ipod
• have momentum for the Xmas season
I look forward a 120gig drive nd a way to input data on the road ala PDA. that would be very nice.
if apple dosen't let zune come out first, it will be funny. Ms is all counting days and hopeing apple has already show it's hand w/ 5.5, then a day before..bam. apple will release the wonderpod and all will be well.
i agree also that this release would require an event. the new comming weeks may produce silent Mb Mbp upgrades with shuffle/ xserve if were lucky. so i dont think it will be october for wonderpod. before nov 14?
also zune has a lot more going on in the device so people and developers will like it. ipod needs to add some pda conviences to "keep up" with the zune.
QuarterSwede
Mar 17, 05:58 PM
I get the opposite. People come up to me and ask if "that's an iPhone?" They usually have a BB or Android phone they hate and ask if I like it. "Hell yeah" is my answer.
snberk103
Apr 15, 10:35 PM
Whoa, is this a contest for the longest post?
Count me absent.
No, why? :)
Count me absent.
No, why? :)
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
sesnir
Mar 28, 07:23 PM
Is there a sign-up page, or are all apps automatically considered? Not that I'd ever win, but still ;)
Clive At Five
Oct 3, 01:36 PM
The Intel powered Macs and iLife got the lion's share of the MWSF2006 keynote and iWork only got a few slides showing improvements to Keynote and Pages got so I am hoping iWork (new spreadsheet app and a very improved Pages) gets some good airtime at MWSF2007.
Right! We've all but forgotten about "Numbers" or whatever they're calling it. "Sheets?" I've forgotten what the latest name is.
-Clive
Right! We've all but forgotten about "Numbers" or whatever they're calling it. "Sheets?" I've forgotten what the latest name is.
-Clive
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 10:27 AM
PS: if you look more closely at Apple's 3Q numbers, you'll see that desktop sales were relatively flat: the growth was in laptops.
As we should expect. Laptops are where the growth is in the PC market today, period. I'd expect Apple's desktop sales to jump in the next couple of quarters, after Adobe ships the Intel version of CS. A lot of users in the pro market are waiting for this.
As we should expect. Laptops are where the growth is in the PC market today, period. I'd expect Apple's desktop sales to jump in the next couple of quarters, after Adobe ships the Intel version of CS. A lot of users in the pro market are waiting for this.
ferrous
Mar 24, 03:43 PM
Happy Birthday! Free iPad for everyone! :)
alupo790
Dec 23, 08:35 AM
i usually just read these and do not post, but i decided to finally register and join the action. i know the arguement against lte in the iphone for vzw, but i say why wouldnt they? they like to be on the cutting edge dont they? as to the arguement on the original being edge not 3g, there was no 3g android when the original iphone came out now android has a significant share of the smartphone market and they are coming out with lte devices at ces for verizon. why would apple wnat to be so far behind android phones in terms of lte and 3g. i think that if apple were to launch a lte phone in june, then why not just launch it in february? what is the difference in a few months when people will be buying up lte android phones in droves after CES
OllyW
Mar 16, 10:49 AM
What difference does it make if one Android device outsells the iPhone? Many of the features are in the OS, not the hardware.
Because when he focuses on one device, Apple 'win'.
Because when he focuses on one device, Apple 'win'.
Russell L
Aug 15, 01:21 AM
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Well, I sprung for a new 23" at the Apple Store in SF last Friday (along with a new Mac Pro!). I asked the salesman to find me one with the highest serial number, which was 2A6251xxxxx (also June 2006). FWIW, the display was set at its highest brightness setting and was just too bright--I've now got it set at about 25% and it looks terrific. No obvious dead pixels, no pink cast. I also purchased the AppleCare warranty, so I should be covered over the next 3 years.
Russell
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Well, I sprung for a new 23" at the Apple Store in SF last Friday (along with a new Mac Pro!). I asked the salesman to find me one with the highest serial number, which was 2A6251xxxxx (also June 2006). FWIW, the display was set at its highest brightness setting and was just too bright--I've now got it set at about 25% and it looks terrific. No obvious dead pixels, no pink cast. I also purchased the AppleCare warranty, so I should be covered over the next 3 years.
Russell
dethmaShine
Apr 13, 07:05 AM
I know and either the OSX is able to connect to the windows PC or gives me errors when I try to access the folder. doing this in windows works fine. I used to use Thursby DAVE for my networking needs in OSX before apple started to provide a more robust (though problematic) set of networking tools. When I used that app, I had little problems having OSX access window's files.
I am comparing OSX to Windows vs. Windows to Windows because 99% of my networking needs is accessing files on a windows machine, whether its on a home pc, or an enterprise server, or workstation. I'm not sure what bugs I could report to apple, other then stating its slow.
I don't think so, perhaps my post was not worded as clearly as it could have been. My point was that networking with windows to windows is easier and windows has an advantage there. given that the companies I've dealt with, they're mostly a windows shop. My point there then is using windows to access the resources is easier, faster and has less headaches.
The only reason I'd asked for OSX<->Windows vs Windows<->Windows was that the problem could lie in Windows as well.
But in my experience, I haven't had any issues. Maybe you should've gone asked the Apple Support Forums about it. Not very sure if you would have gotten a straight answer, though.
I would say that networking is easier but I myself have seen issues with consistency in connecting to shared servers.
But this had gotten much much better with 10.6.2/3. Leopard always had bugs with accessing files/folders with windows as well as macintosh computers.
I am comparing OSX to Windows vs. Windows to Windows because 99% of my networking needs is accessing files on a windows machine, whether its on a home pc, or an enterprise server, or workstation. I'm not sure what bugs I could report to apple, other then stating its slow.
I don't think so, perhaps my post was not worded as clearly as it could have been. My point was that networking with windows to windows is easier and windows has an advantage there. given that the companies I've dealt with, they're mostly a windows shop. My point there then is using windows to access the resources is easier, faster and has less headaches.
The only reason I'd asked for OSX<->Windows vs Windows<->Windows was that the problem could lie in Windows as well.
But in my experience, I haven't had any issues. Maybe you should've gone asked the Apple Support Forums about it. Not very sure if you would have gotten a straight answer, though.
I would say that networking is easier but I myself have seen issues with consistency in connecting to shared servers.
But this had gotten much much better with 10.6.2/3. Leopard always had bugs with accessing files/folders with windows as well as macintosh computers.
Kapangas
Apr 25, 01:48 PM
Did anyone else notice the apparent lack of a search icon next to the homescreen page indicator?
It does kinda remind me of this: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/19/video-of-64-gb-white-iphone-4-running-old-test-ios-4-build-with-expose/
This was proven to be an older build of iOS4 though, so I'm not sure what to make out of it. :/
I noticed it too! Maybe it's true and they're testing that new multitasking for iOS 5? :confused:
It does kinda remind me of this: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/19/video-of-64-gb-white-iphone-4-running-old-test-ios-4-build-with-expose/
This was proven to be an older build of iOS4 though, so I'm not sure what to make out of it. :/
I noticed it too! Maybe it's true and they're testing that new multitasking for iOS 5? :confused:
COSWORTH
Mar 17, 09:22 AM
Karma, (in short,) is a concept explaining why some babies were born to great parents and others to bad parents. (It evolved into a concept of, be good in this life and you will be born into a good, or better life next time around.)
Hell all this time I was under the impression that it was a female dog, which is something real in this world. I hear a lot of people say Karma is a bitch. I should have known it was something made up and not something real.
Hell all this time I was under the impression that it was a female dog, which is something real in this world. I hear a lot of people say Karma is a bitch. I should have known it was something made up and not something real.
No comments:
Post a Comment