BoyBach
Oct 17, 01:51 PM
I think the humble DVD-9 is going to be the 'top dog' for movies for quite a while yet. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, plus HD televisions with 780/1080i/p etc resolutions are difficult for the average consumer to understand, never mind get excited about enough to pay out thousands of pounds/dollars for - unless they're cimema-philes or geeks. (No offence meant.)
These massive storage mediums are only useful for computer users for the foreseeable future, where photo & music collections can be backed up to fewer discs.
My unimportant view on the topic, but I'm always right :p
These massive storage mediums are only useful for computer users for the foreseeable future, where photo & music collections can be backed up to fewer discs.
My unimportant view on the topic, but I'm always right :p
Popeye206
Mar 29, 08:03 AM
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Winni.... you're obviously playing lawyer and have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft could do what Apple is doing. There is nothing illegal or anti trust about distributing software. They just have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If Apple was to give away the distribution, that would be more in line with anti-trust because then they would be using their power to give something that others pay for. As long as Microsoft would keep their rules within the boundaries of the industry practice, they would be fine to do the same.
Things change and companies with the better idea's thrive while others go away. Music stores are dying. Video stores are dying. Book stores are dying and software distribution stores are dying. But not because of just Apple.... because with the digital age many companies are by-passing channel completely and going direct. What Apple does would be no different than Ford or Mercedes distributing 3rd party accessories through their dealerships to their customers.
Also.... your rights on software depends on what's in the license when you buy it. If it's non-transerable, it's non-transferable. That's why you can get away with buying some of this software for $5. But it's not your legal right to resell. That depends on the license you agree to.
Whoa! The jury is still out as to whether the Mac App Store is a success. While a few apps at the top have trumpeted their success, I dare say there is a far greater mass of apps that are doing less business than before the Mac App Store opened.
In my own market segment the Mac App Store has reduced the cash flow for everyone due largely, among other factors, to the increased and sustained visibility of the freebies. It is crazy for Apple to court developers and then throw up a list of freebies alongside my own paid offering. Thanks so much -- for nothing! Where are the free alternatives to Garage Band, Keynote, or Numbers? You can be sure they are not on the same page in the Mac App Store...
As far as I am concerned as a developer, the Mac App Store is a waste of time unless we can all go write $1.99 apps that get downloaded by a million people (good luck!). Anything that requires significant development time is a loss. Plus, anything that costs real money can't be tried first from the Mac App Store. Developers still have to maintain websites, demos, and bandwidth but then pay Apple 30% for the sale in an environment that depresses prices. Success? By what measure and for whom?
I hear your point, but disagree. Putting your software in the App store will not guarantee success or failure. People buy what's worth it to them. They will pay for what meets their needs. Also, they have to know you exist too. Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced. And as you point out... that is hard to compete in too.... back to my first point.
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Winni.... you're obviously playing lawyer and have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft could do what Apple is doing. There is nothing illegal or anti trust about distributing software. They just have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If Apple was to give away the distribution, that would be more in line with anti-trust because then they would be using their power to give something that others pay for. As long as Microsoft would keep their rules within the boundaries of the industry practice, they would be fine to do the same.
Things change and companies with the better idea's thrive while others go away. Music stores are dying. Video stores are dying. Book stores are dying and software distribution stores are dying. But not because of just Apple.... because with the digital age many companies are by-passing channel completely and going direct. What Apple does would be no different than Ford or Mercedes distributing 3rd party accessories through their dealerships to their customers.
Also.... your rights on software depends on what's in the license when you buy it. If it's non-transerable, it's non-transferable. That's why you can get away with buying some of this software for $5. But it's not your legal right to resell. That depends on the license you agree to.
Whoa! The jury is still out as to whether the Mac App Store is a success. While a few apps at the top have trumpeted their success, I dare say there is a far greater mass of apps that are doing less business than before the Mac App Store opened.
In my own market segment the Mac App Store has reduced the cash flow for everyone due largely, among other factors, to the increased and sustained visibility of the freebies. It is crazy for Apple to court developers and then throw up a list of freebies alongside my own paid offering. Thanks so much -- for nothing! Where are the free alternatives to Garage Band, Keynote, or Numbers? You can be sure they are not on the same page in the Mac App Store...
As far as I am concerned as a developer, the Mac App Store is a waste of time unless we can all go write $1.99 apps that get downloaded by a million people (good luck!). Anything that requires significant development time is a loss. Plus, anything that costs real money can't be tried first from the Mac App Store. Developers still have to maintain websites, demos, and bandwidth but then pay Apple 30% for the sale in an environment that depresses prices. Success? By what measure and for whom?
I hear your point, but disagree. Putting your software in the App store will not guarantee success or failure. People buy what's worth it to them. They will pay for what meets their needs. Also, they have to know you exist too. Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced. And as you point out... that is hard to compete in too.... back to my first point.
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
Al Coholic
Apr 29, 07:26 PM
It's really hard to screw up a simple UI "Button" but leave it to Apple to constantly assume their user base is stupid and can't manage a simple "click". Give us the ability to change themes if you want to the UI to look differently.
We promise not to kill ourselves.
We promise not to kill ourselves.
twoodcc
Aug 15, 12:51 AM
104c wow! :eek: might need to get a bit more air movement in there hey!
yeah i'm not sure if its the card, or that slot in the motherboard
yeah i'm not sure if its the card, or that slot in the motherboard
wtmcgee
Oct 20, 12:00 PM
when CS3 ships, watch the marketshare explode.
skoker
Oct 3, 12:20 PM
My MR sense was tingling... Why did I click on the front page just as something was posted YET AGAIN?!? :eek:
Anyways, seriously cool. The Countdown Begins!
Anyways, seriously cool. The Countdown Begins!
twoodcc
Apr 11, 03:23 PM
Mate if you think thats bad, I'n holding out for a Mac mini and there has been no rumors for it! Would love to see a intel i5 :D
yeah i hear ya. an i5 mac mini would be very nice. but again, i doubt it will happen this year, if ever
yeah i hear ya. an i5 mac mini would be very nice. but again, i doubt it will happen this year, if ever
Anonymous Freak
Oct 11, 12:12 PM
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
From the very top of "Page 2":
Page 2: Uncertain news and links
I always took that as an implication that page 1 rumors were from more reliable sources, and should be considered more likely to be true. I didn't say that they were guaranteed to be true, just that they are more reliable.
You also (used to, at least, I can't see any current stories that do,) have disclaimers on Page 2 stories stating that the sources were unreliable, so that's why they were on Page 2. Again, implying that page 1 rumors were more reliable.
Ever since Macslash went downhill, and the significantly more frequent postings of Mac "news" on page 1, I had taken page 1 to be a "news and reliable rumors" page, while Page 2 was a good old fashioned "random rumors of questionable accuracy" page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
From the very top of "Page 2":
Page 2: Uncertain news and links
I always took that as an implication that page 1 rumors were from more reliable sources, and should be considered more likely to be true. I didn't say that they were guaranteed to be true, just that they are more reliable.
You also (used to, at least, I can't see any current stories that do,) have disclaimers on Page 2 stories stating that the sources were unreliable, so that's why they were on Page 2. Again, implying that page 1 rumors were more reliable.
Ever since Macslash went downhill, and the significantly more frequent postings of Mac "news" on page 1, I had taken page 1 to be a "news and reliable rumors" page, while Page 2 was a good old fashioned "random rumors of questionable accuracy" page.
ct2k7
Apr 23, 07:59 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)
Who is this "untoward person"?
What would the "issue" be?
e.g. paedophile. Issue is rather obvious.
Who is this "untoward person"?
What would the "issue" be?
e.g. paedophile. Issue is rather obvious.
shen
Oct 19, 04:50 PM
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
MattSepeta
Apr 27, 12:01 PM
In what way is "McDonalds responsible?"
Were the shareholders involved in the senseless beating?
Was the CFO video taping the thing?
Was the COO telling the perps to "run"?
Nope.
How about we hold the degenerates who put fist to flesh responsible rather than scapegoating the big bad business?
IMO, scapegoating McDonalds only cheapens the issue. Now if you want to talk about the EMPLOYEES responsibilities for ensuring a safe environment for customers, that is another issue that I will fully support.
Wow.
Your ignorance related to trans issues is really showing here. I suggest you do a little research on this topic next time around.
She is a woman plain and simple, what is or isn't between her legs does not matter one bit IMO.
Female (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female) (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells).
Looks to me like science begs to differ; a woman is a female human. A female produces ova. Last I checked, M->F can NOT produce OVA.
Sure, they deserve the same rights and respect as anyone else, I dont care if you choose to attach a penis to your forehead, it does not give anyone the right to assault you.
swirly stars random lines
ackground stars
Multi Background Stars
bokeh stars background
Bursting Stars Background
Rainbow and stars background
stars background wallpaper.
backgrounds stars 6104
Were the shareholders involved in the senseless beating?
Was the CFO video taping the thing?
Was the COO telling the perps to "run"?
Nope.
How about we hold the degenerates who put fist to flesh responsible rather than scapegoating the big bad business?
IMO, scapegoating McDonalds only cheapens the issue. Now if you want to talk about the EMPLOYEES responsibilities for ensuring a safe environment for customers, that is another issue that I will fully support.
Wow.
Your ignorance related to trans issues is really showing here. I suggest you do a little research on this topic next time around.
She is a woman plain and simple, what is or isn't between her legs does not matter one bit IMO.
Female (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female) (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells).
Looks to me like science begs to differ; a woman is a female human. A female produces ova. Last I checked, M->F can NOT produce OVA.
Sure, they deserve the same rights and respect as anyone else, I dont care if you choose to attach a penis to your forehead, it does not give anyone the right to assault you.
840quadra
Nov 24, 07:03 AM
Well I went to the Mall of America Apple Store (Bloomington Minnesota) that opened at 6am CST, bought a Macbook, and have since returned home.
I was the first person in the store at the register, and the 1st to buy a computer today at that store :)
I got the C2D 1.83 GHZ (Base model ;) ) for $1062.87 out the door :) .
I was the first person in the store at the register, and the 1st to buy a computer today at that store :)
I got the C2D 1.83 GHZ (Base model ;) ) for $1062.87 out the door :) .
jimbo999
Oct 2, 07:04 PM
But what's the point of that? So a few geeks can hack their iPod to play whatever?
Opening Fairplay to other companies opens the iPod to other services. The biggest risk to Apple is the opening of Fairplay to other MP3 manufacturers.
Besides... the more I think about it, the more I don't see why iTunes wouldn't play the compatible Fairplay songs. Apple can't make any major changes to the existing DRM in files to break compatible Fairplay files.... since they would have then have to reencode all of those files sitting on people's hard drives.
arn
Perhaps DVD Jon's business model in this instance primarily revolves around getting Apple to pay him off...
Opening Fairplay to other companies opens the iPod to other services. The biggest risk to Apple is the opening of Fairplay to other MP3 manufacturers.
Besides... the more I think about it, the more I don't see why iTunes wouldn't play the compatible Fairplay songs. Apple can't make any major changes to the existing DRM in files to break compatible Fairplay files.... since they would have then have to reencode all of those files sitting on people's hard drives.
arn
Perhaps DVD Jon's business model in this instance primarily revolves around getting Apple to pay him off...
RichP
Aug 13, 12:13 PM
klaus,
so, based on your experience, we can still say the "new" 23s are junk? That really is upsetting.
I gave up on 23s a while ago, although I would really like the increased resolution. I agree with what you said, for the price we pay, we should get quality and consistency, (especially with a company that really pushes dual screen configurations) There is NOTHING more irritating than when the monitors dont "match"
so, based on your experience, we can still say the "new" 23s are junk? That really is upsetting.
I gave up on 23s a while ago, although I would really like the increased resolution. I agree with what you said, for the price we pay, we should get quality and consistency, (especially with a company that really pushes dual screen configurations) There is NOTHING more irritating than when the monitors dont "match"
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:21 AM
It really looks like movies may be hitting the iTunes Store. I also am wondering....could they also be integrating the Apple Store into iTunes?? It would be cool to buy a new iPod right from within iTunes and maybe....possibly have it shipped with all of your iTunes purchases on the device.....that would of course require a firmware/iTunes update? Anyway I am sure we will probably all be disappointed.
Just make it an option upon checkout if people use the shopping cart feature...
But I doubt it'll happen.
Just make it an option upon checkout if people use the shopping cart feature...
But I doubt it'll happen.
LightSpeed1
Apr 13, 12:30 PM
Why not get a mini displayport straight to DVI cable? I never understood the use of an adapter. Maybe someone can shed some light?To be completely honest, I didn't look into such a cable. I knew about the adapter and assumed that was the only option.
rdowns
Apr 23, 01:15 PM
The rating system looks ugly and out of place and just adds clutter to the forums.
Much like the logo in your avatar. :p
Much like the logo in your avatar. :p
skunk
Apr 21, 12:12 PM
Exactly.Very inexactly. The Arabs invented 0 some time ago. The system is borked.
MrMac'n'Cheese
May 3, 09:54 PM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/03/apple-releases-if-you-asked-commercial-for-ipad-2/)
YouTube: video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Um4gLMZDXkA)
Apple released a new iPad 2 television commercial which carries the same tone as the We Believe commercial released in early April.
The new ad is on Apple's iPad page and YouTube channel.
Article Link: Apple Releases 'If You Asked' Commercial for iPad 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/03/apple-releases-if-you-asked-commercial-for-ipad-2/)
Another example of top notch marketing and promotions =D
YouTube: video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Um4gLMZDXkA)
Apple released a new iPad 2 television commercial which carries the same tone as the We Believe commercial released in early April.
The new ad is on Apple's iPad page and YouTube channel.
Article Link: Apple Releases 'If You Asked' Commercial for iPad 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/03/apple-releases-if-you-asked-commercial-for-ipad-2/)
Another example of top notch marketing and promotions =D
BlueRevolution
Oct 28, 07:34 PM
I rue the day when Apple has to try and lock down OSX like MS is forced to attempt with Vista!
OS X doesn't even have a serial number in the boxes. Apple's lack of caring of this extends to the point where they haven't even bothered to have the ability to tell the difference between a pirated copy and a legitimate copy of the OS. I don't see tyrannical anti-piracy policy coming anytime soon, and I don't see Apple taking drastic measures to prevent OS X on beige boxes soon either.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the math of piracy. It's not
gross profit = (unit price) (units in use - units pirated)
it's
gross profit = (unit price) (units in use - units pirated + sales gained due to piracy)
This will be especially noticeable in Apple's case, where people that might never otherwise have the opportunity or inclination to try out OS X download it onto their PCs, fall in love with it and their next computer is a Mac. Not only has Apple made a software sale, they have also sold a piece of $2k hardware with a 20% profit margin. I personally know people that have done this.
I think that prettymuch alone of large software companies, Apple sees the other side of piracy. It's never a given that you're a pirate OR you buy software/music/movies/games/whatever in stores.
OS X doesn't even have a serial number in the boxes. Apple's lack of caring of this extends to the point where they haven't even bothered to have the ability to tell the difference between a pirated copy and a legitimate copy of the OS. I don't see tyrannical anti-piracy policy coming anytime soon, and I don't see Apple taking drastic measures to prevent OS X on beige boxes soon either.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the math of piracy. It's not
gross profit = (unit price) (units in use - units pirated)
it's
gross profit = (unit price) (units in use - units pirated + sales gained due to piracy)
This will be especially noticeable in Apple's case, where people that might never otherwise have the opportunity or inclination to try out OS X download it onto their PCs, fall in love with it and their next computer is a Mac. Not only has Apple made a software sale, they have also sold a piece of $2k hardware with a 20% profit margin. I personally know people that have done this.
I think that prettymuch alone of large software companies, Apple sees the other side of piracy. It's never a given that you're a pirate OR you buy software/music/movies/games/whatever in stores.
Zadillo
Oct 10, 09:19 PM
While I don't know about Engadget's "reliable" Apple sources, their reliable Microsoft sources gave em everything about the Zune, even a PICTURE.
So don't dismiss this, it's Page 1 worthy, but it's also not more than 50% likely, as it would be if this was AppleInsider we were talking about.
Well, the difference there is that Microsoft used Engadget and others as part of their marketing campaign - "leaking" product information and photos to them to try and drum up interest. They did the same thing before with their "leaks" of Origami to try and build up hype. Of course, Zune seems to have gained more traction than UMPC (perhaps because the Zune is basically using a model that has been proven successful by the iPod).
Apple on the other hand just doesn't seem to leak product information ahead of time any more, and they also don't seem to need to do that kind of thing to generate hype and excitement for their products.
-Zadillo
So don't dismiss this, it's Page 1 worthy, but it's also not more than 50% likely, as it would be if this was AppleInsider we were talking about.
Well, the difference there is that Microsoft used Engadget and others as part of their marketing campaign - "leaking" product information and photos to them to try and drum up interest. They did the same thing before with their "leaks" of Origami to try and build up hype. Of course, Zune seems to have gained more traction than UMPC (perhaps because the Zune is basically using a model that has been proven successful by the iPod).
Apple on the other hand just doesn't seem to leak product information ahead of time any more, and they also don't seem to need to do that kind of thing to generate hype and excitement for their products.
-Zadillo
MagicBoy
Mar 24, 08:08 PM
Windows has been downhill since DOS.
Pardon? Want to try that again?
Pardon? Want to try that again?
dabear
Apr 29, 04:11 PM
I noticed on an aforementioned wikipedia page that Samba was removed...
Does this mean I cannot connect to a linux server via smb:// ???
Not everything is a windows workgroup... :(
I mean I guess it's not a huge deal since I can ssh in, but I liked mounting it as a volume from finder.
Apple invented their own software for interfacing with the smb protocol (and v2 of the protocol). The samba version included in OS X is horribly outdated, and the shift is most probably due to the new license of Samba (was gpl v2, is now GPL v3).
So you can still connect via the smb:// protocol :)
Does this mean I cannot connect to a linux server via smb:// ???
Not everything is a windows workgroup... :(
I mean I guess it's not a huge deal since I can ssh in, but I liked mounting it as a volume from finder.
Apple invented their own software for interfacing with the smb protocol (and v2 of the protocol). The samba version included in OS X is horribly outdated, and the shift is most probably due to the new license of Samba (was gpl v2, is now GPL v3).
So you can still connect via the smb:// protocol :)
hatersgonnahate
Apr 13, 02:55 PM
Delivered today.
thought about getting those but im getting the samson 3i's instead. lmk how they are
thought about getting those but im getting the samson 3i's instead. lmk how they are
No comments:
Post a Comment