brucem91
May 3, 04:28 PM
gah, seriously apple needs to talk to geforce/ati and get some decent drivers, cause the beta is so much smoother in bootcamp.
shame, with steam incoming soon.
i will never play sc2 on mac as it is now
The thing is that OS X uses OpenGl, where Windows uses DirectX. I'd agree with you, but I'd prefer running in OS X vs rebooting and my macbook running hotter. Plus while in the b.net menus, I can resize with apple + m, and open safari real quick, yet still be in the game. Plus, even on low, the game still looks pretty cool in my opinion.
shame, with steam incoming soon.
i will never play sc2 on mac as it is now
The thing is that OS X uses OpenGl, where Windows uses DirectX. I'd agree with you, but I'd prefer running in OS X vs rebooting and my macbook running hotter. Plus while in the b.net menus, I can resize with apple + m, and open safari real quick, yet still be in the game. Plus, even on low, the game still looks pretty cool in my opinion.
Zephi
Mar 22, 01:04 PM
I hate those. Or when I hear people talking about it. How do they expect that to do anything?
Making them be more competitive on prices, or something? Its not that they make hardly any profit on petrol, you know. I assume its a helluva profit, and the prices depend on some kind of lobby decisions, thats for sure. So if you dont complain about the amount of money you pay for a litre, why would they lower it?
Making them be more competitive on prices, or something? Its not that they make hardly any profit on petrol, you know. I assume its a helluva profit, and the prices depend on some kind of lobby decisions, thats for sure. So if you dont complain about the amount of money you pay for a litre, why would they lower it?
toddybody
Apr 14, 09:06 AM
Sorry Woz...but you arent an Orackle of computing truths (neither am I).
Im a Systems Engineer who *get ready for it* has an iPad. :eek:
But yes, of course iPad owner's use it for normal fun stuff...nobody codes on their iPad (cause ya cant), and I only know one person who uses it as a primary business machine...hes got one of the bluetoothe keyboard cases. LMFAO, we just tell him, "ya know, thats what we call a laptop"
Im a Systems Engineer who *get ready for it* has an iPad. :eek:
But yes, of course iPad owner's use it for normal fun stuff...nobody codes on their iPad (cause ya cant), and I only know one person who uses it as a primary business machine...hes got one of the bluetoothe keyboard cases. LMFAO, we just tell him, "ya know, thats what we call a laptop"
Daveoc64
Aug 19, 11:21 PM
The amount of stupidity in this thread is mind-blowing. Don't want people to know where you are? Don't check in. It's so simple.
By default, your friends can check you in to any location - whether you're there or not.
That's where the real privacy concern is coming from.
It's one thing if YOU put your location out to the world, but it's another thing entirely when your friends can do it (and I'm sure many would do that, quite innocently).
By default, your friends can check you in to any location - whether you're there or not.
That's where the real privacy concern is coming from.
It's one thing if YOU put your location out to the world, but it's another thing entirely when your friends can do it (and I'm sure many would do that, quite innocently).
more...
tktaylor1
Apr 18, 01:43 PM
How much is an imac g3 (purple) worth. It has everything just like the day he bought it down to the styrofoam? He has the manuals, box, keyboard and mouse, styrofoam and whatever else comes in the box.
ECUpirate44
Apr 7, 06:58 AM
http://blog.iphone-dev.org/
more...
rhett7660
Mar 24, 02:50 PM
Crap... that is a freaking steel and well there just went the resell value of everyone's first gen iPad, including me. Oh well.
innominato5090
May 5, 11:01 AM
Take a look at the light bleeding in the lower right. I'm thinking of returning it, and getting another unit. Thought I'd post first to see if this is normal with all units.
yup, go to apple and ask for a replacement.
yup, go to apple and ask for a replacement.
more...
daneoni
Jan 7, 06:32 PM
Push effectively doesn't work for me unless i switch alerts on...badges and sounds don't work and i really cant be bothered to start restoring/resetting/reformatting my phone because of one app. I've tried deleting and re-installing the app and thats as far as i'll go.
So its back to hourly email updates for me.
So its back to hourly email updates for me.
Hellhammer
Apr 20, 02:10 PM
Why do you guys assume Nvidia cannot make graphic cards for Sandy Bridge? Have you seen Dell's Alienware laptop line? They have the new processors and also are using Nvidia graphics card.
NVidia can make graphics cards but they cannot make chipsets. The 320M is the chipset as well. There are only two chips in the logic board, the CPU and 320M. With a discrete GPU, there would have to be three chips; CPU, PCH and GPU. Since space is very limited in MBA, there is simple no space for all three chips.
NVidia can make graphics cards but they cannot make chipsets. The 320M is the chipset as well. There are only two chips in the logic board, the CPU and 320M. With a discrete GPU, there would have to be three chips; CPU, PCH and GPU. Since space is very limited in MBA, there is simple no space for all three chips.
more...
Celeron
Apr 30, 03:21 PM
Blizzard makes native games, so no, it isn't a cider port.
appleguy123
Mar 26, 05:15 PM
Steve: See this hands? I could kill you with my bare hands right here!!!
Eric: uh huh..
Those hands hold the new iPhone. http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-claims-new-iphone-only-visible-to-most-loyal,2772/
Eric: uh huh..
Those hands hold the new iPhone. http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-claims-new-iphone-only-visible-to-most-loyal,2772/
more...
bella92108
Apr 1, 01:07 PM
Ala Carte Channels would cause some channels to go away, on the other hand it would allow other channels to thrive and flourish, because the channels people really wanted to watch would get the most revenue.
I don't want to overpay for the 10 channels I want so 20 other channels I don't care about can continue to exist. Let the marketplace sort it out. It certainly would not actually make channels appeal to a wider demographic, it would probably be the opposite really, as small strong niches carry the day and carry their channels and the programming.
Very intelligent post. +1
I don't want to overpay for the 10 channels I want so 20 other channels I don't care about can continue to exist. Let the marketplace sort it out. It certainly would not actually make channels appeal to a wider demographic, it would probably be the opposite really, as small strong niches carry the day and carry their channels and the programming.
Very intelligent post. +1
rdowns
May 2, 01:22 PM
I wish this would begin our troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Simply a money pit.
The fact is, little will likely change. We'll still keep buying cold war era weapons like the F-22.
Trillions of dollars on all those cold war fighter jets and all we have to show for it is ****ing Top Gun. :D
The fact is, little will likely change. We'll still keep buying cold war era weapons like the F-22.
Trillions of dollars on all those cold war fighter jets and all we have to show for it is ****ing Top Gun. :D
more...
dscuber9000
Mar 28, 10:52 AM
Wow, this is going to over-lap with E3. It'll be a hell of a week. :D
thatisme
Mar 29, 10:58 AM
sorry man.. i just cannot help you...
you are beyond what we, on planet earth, define as normal...
I tried.. i really tried..please read carefully what i wrote..
the "cropping" was referred to only one camera body.. just to illustrate you the whole crop size thing.
Now on the top of my quote you write to show you an exif intact photo with an EFs and EF lens..
I cannot do that as I don't have my cam but I will have it back on the weekend and I actually own a dx and FX lens (EF-s and EF) in Nikon land that overlap at 24mm, so I CAN show you..
to everyone else: Can someone do this before then to show our poor misguided soul what is going on?.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
F Mount has not changed since the 1950's and the reason why they kept it was that they can let people use older lenses.. Canonians for example got forced to EF in the 80's if I am not mistaken.
Now drop it.. you lost.
I have not made claims on Nikon mounts. Only about the crop mode. I used to shoot Nikon gear. So I am familiar with the cameras and the lenses. I now shoot Canon gear, ok. I am also very familiar with the lenses and gear.
Every time this subject comes up, the general response is... "but if you crop"... which is what you brought into the conversation. The fact is if you want a true comparison, you cannot crop. As from the example in #27 or whatever post it was with the 5D image, yes, you could crop it and get a 1.6 FOV. BUT, that is NOT what the lens is transmitting (see the black corners). Is the actual FOV the same? Again, who gives a flying flip. What is the true definition of FOV? Again, Does it matter to the average Joe with a camera? NO. It's the resulting image that matters, and if you got those black corners in your pictures, would you be happy that in order to get a usable image you ..."just have to crop"?
At the end of the day, the debate is... is the IMAGE the same or not. Who gives a flying flip about the FOV. All that matters is do you have the same subject in the frame, and the resulting print. If your print has more subject in the frame than another, then the image is DIFFERENT (and yes, this can be achieved with the same focal length lens, different sensor sized cameras). Again, see #27.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
So do this experiment for fun.... Mount your F mount lens to your Nikon body. Set your Focal length. Mount to tripod. Shoot an image. Look at your results
Now, take that same setup and simply change your setting to your DX setting (1.6 or 1.5.. I forget for Nikon). Look at your results.
Are the images different or the same? What changed? The lens is the same focal length on both images, but your sensor capture are has changed. The DX mode only records the center of the image circle.
Now, Im fairly certain the next logical argument you will bring up.... IF you change the physical dimensions of the resulting images because of the number of megapixels and file size (dimensions)...... This will bring us to another debate about the merits of up-rezzing or down-sampling an image. Again, not an Apple-to-Apple comparison.
you are beyond what we, on planet earth, define as normal...
I tried.. i really tried..please read carefully what i wrote..
the "cropping" was referred to only one camera body.. just to illustrate you the whole crop size thing.
Now on the top of my quote you write to show you an exif intact photo with an EFs and EF lens..
I cannot do that as I don't have my cam but I will have it back on the weekend and I actually own a dx and FX lens (EF-s and EF) in Nikon land that overlap at 24mm, so I CAN show you..
to everyone else: Can someone do this before then to show our poor misguided soul what is going on?.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
F Mount has not changed since the 1950's and the reason why they kept it was that they can let people use older lenses.. Canonians for example got forced to EF in the 80's if I am not mistaken.
Now drop it.. you lost.
I have not made claims on Nikon mounts. Only about the crop mode. I used to shoot Nikon gear. So I am familiar with the cameras and the lenses. I now shoot Canon gear, ok. I am also very familiar with the lenses and gear.
Every time this subject comes up, the general response is... "but if you crop"... which is what you brought into the conversation. The fact is if you want a true comparison, you cannot crop. As from the example in #27 or whatever post it was with the 5D image, yes, you could crop it and get a 1.6 FOV. BUT, that is NOT what the lens is transmitting (see the black corners). Is the actual FOV the same? Again, who gives a flying flip. What is the true definition of FOV? Again, Does it matter to the average Joe with a camera? NO. It's the resulting image that matters, and if you got those black corners in your pictures, would you be happy that in order to get a usable image you ..."just have to crop"?
At the end of the day, the debate is... is the IMAGE the same or not. Who gives a flying flip about the FOV. All that matters is do you have the same subject in the frame, and the resulting print. If your print has more subject in the frame than another, then the image is DIFFERENT (and yes, this can be achieved with the same focal length lens, different sensor sized cameras). Again, see #27.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
So do this experiment for fun.... Mount your F mount lens to your Nikon body. Set your Focal length. Mount to tripod. Shoot an image. Look at your results
Now, take that same setup and simply change your setting to your DX setting (1.6 or 1.5.. I forget for Nikon). Look at your results.
Are the images different or the same? What changed? The lens is the same focal length on both images, but your sensor capture are has changed. The DX mode only records the center of the image circle.
Now, Im fairly certain the next logical argument you will bring up.... IF you change the physical dimensions of the resulting images because of the number of megapixels and file size (dimensions)...... This will bring us to another debate about the merits of up-rezzing or down-sampling an image. Again, not an Apple-to-Apple comparison.
more...
crazy dave
Apr 5, 05:41 PM
The problem with CR's iPhone 4 report was not that they didn't recommend the iPhone 4 when it originally came out on AT&T but that they then reiterated their "Not recommend" labeling for the Verizon iPhone 4 for having the same 'death grip' issue. They did this despite that the Verizon version had a different antenna design. Anandtech, who were amongst the first to quantify the 'death grip' issue for the AT&T version, showed that in fact the VZ iPhone 4 fared no worse than other smartphones. For the original iPhone 4, CR felt while it was great in many categories, it's antenna issue was too great a problem in their eyes. One could argue that they overstated the problem given that most users didn't seem to mind, but their position of "Not recommended" is not unjustifiable for the AT&T iPhone 4. However, CR clearly screwed up on the VZ iPhone 4.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/03/technology/verizon_iphone/index.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4163/verizon-iphone-4-review/
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/03/technology/verizon_iphone/index.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4163/verizon-iphone-4-review/
MacBandit
Sep 14, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by King Cobra
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one. They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it. These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
verbose, do you ever give newbies a break with typos these days? :rolleyes: :D
Great posts, guys. Well worth reading. But I think some of you need to take a closer look at WHY MHz/GHz doesn't matter as much.
First of all, the Px does not have the Velocity Engine, and OS 10.1/2 uses it. There is a dramatic performance over the G4 (and especially later G3s) with 10.2, as the operating system is now more effeciant. Also, OS X takes advantage of dual processors to a certain degree (maybe an extra 50 percent or so). Finally, when you take a look at the new PowerMacs, you are looking at 4MB of L3 Cache (w/ dual 1.25GHz). The Px don't seem to have that (if any). So, basically, that would bring a 64-bit system (in terms of the P4) to about 4 or 5GHz right there.
Now, take a look at the PC. Sure, the PC has incredible boot time, is great for playing games, and has a quick OS. However, the P4 lacks the necessity of an effecient L1 Cache. I do not see how 4Kb will provide enough memory for the complex operations tha Macs can handle. So, instead of a 4.7GHz, you're looking at, maybe, 3.x or 4GHz, assuming, with this new chip, the L1 cache has remained unchanged.
First of all what do you consider great boot times? Not that this matters a lot. I have a new Dual Ghz/DDR and it starts from cold boot to login in screen in 27secs with 10.2 and from login to operating finder is nearly instantaneous.
Second of all as I have stated before the true reason Mhz doesn't matter is because something like %98 of all computer users are not power users these are the people that will go buy a new computer tomorrow and if there is a 2.8Ghz computer sitting next to a 800Mhz computer they couldn't care they're going to buy the cheap one. They don't even care how much ram it has. I know this because I went computer shopping with my boss for work(yes for a PC). He wanted my help. Well little help I was he bought the cheapest computer he could get with 64MB of Ram I suggested we upgrade it later and he agreed well that was 2 years ago still it sits with 64MB of RAM in it. Oh and I might add it still has all the stickers on the front of it. These people don't care about this stuff all it's used for is mail and the occasional websearch and most people are like this.
JesterJJZ
Oct 7, 03:48 AM
I would love some sort of flip/clamshell design. I've always hated the single flat slate phone design. I want a phone first not a PDA.
campingsk8er
Mar 13, 12:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Mine went an hour back on Saturday morning. :/. But as soon as I even clicked date & date it fixed it back
Mine went an hour back on Saturday morning. :/. But as soon as I even clicked date & date it fixed it back
swarmster
Apr 19, 01:10 PM
It can be scrollable. And can't icons just be overlaid in the corner a'la Lion Mission Control?
It could be scrollable, but expose isn't scrollable so you're mixing metaphors. And it's not just about whether you can fit more than 9 apps - what if you're using bulky apps and can only keep 7 apps in memory at once (the iPad 1 had less memory, remember)? You're putting up invisible walls in your interface.
Little icons in the corner is one option, although in a way making the icon a sub-feature of the window implies that multiple windows could be associated with that icon, which isn't true. Even if you don't agree, it is just one alternative, and it would be presented along with all the other prototypes, and Apple apparently decided the multitasking pane was better. Expose isn't always an evolution.
The current implementation is also inconsistent in the UI department, in that the same action and will result in two different actions.
In some cases, a hold > jiggle > close will result in an app shutting down, and other times the same action set (hold > jiggle > close) will result in an app being deleted.
Are you arguing that the multitasking pane doesn't have clear differentiation from the home screen? I thought giving it a different texture, pushing the home screen up out of the way, and requiring a quick double-press to bring it up accomplished that.
It could be scrollable, but expose isn't scrollable so you're mixing metaphors. And it's not just about whether you can fit more than 9 apps - what if you're using bulky apps and can only keep 7 apps in memory at once (the iPad 1 had less memory, remember)? You're putting up invisible walls in your interface.
Little icons in the corner is one option, although in a way making the icon a sub-feature of the window implies that multiple windows could be associated with that icon, which isn't true. Even if you don't agree, it is just one alternative, and it would be presented along with all the other prototypes, and Apple apparently decided the multitasking pane was better. Expose isn't always an evolution.
The current implementation is also inconsistent in the UI department, in that the same action and will result in two different actions.
In some cases, a hold > jiggle > close will result in an app shutting down, and other times the same action set (hold > jiggle > close) will result in an app being deleted.
Are you arguing that the multitasking pane doesn't have clear differentiation from the home screen? I thought giving it a different texture, pushing the home screen up out of the way, and requiring a quick double-press to bring it up accomplished that.
redeye be
Feb 21, 01:22 PM
You're right,
It doesn't work for me either.
I haven't looked at this for ages, extremeoverclocking probably changed their xml design. I'll see what I can do, but I can't promisse you a fast solution. My daughter and studies take up most of my time right now.
I'll post a working version in this thread, when I come to it. If you'd like to take over development however, feel free to do so.
Thanks for trying the widget :)
It doesn't work for me either.
I haven't looked at this for ages, extremeoverclocking probably changed their xml design. I'll see what I can do, but I can't promisse you a fast solution. My daughter and studies take up most of my time right now.
I'll post a working version in this thread, when I come to it. If you'd like to take over development however, feel free to do so.
Thanks for trying the widget :)
jb3designs
Oct 27, 12:30 AM
Haven't heard anyone mention about the email performance of .mac. I have two accounts and you can never depend on email arriving promptly. I've sometimes waited several hours for email to show up.
wsteineker
May 26, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by macktheknife
I use Macs and PCs (running XP and NT) on a regular basis. Hardware recognition ("Plug and Play") is definitely better on the Mac. However, agree almost 100% with you that Windows XP has gotten much better in recognizing hardware. Through continued industry standardization, Windows is bound to get better with recognizing hardware.
Yes, but that's just the industry bending to MS's will, not Microsoft actually producing a quality product. That's what's so frustrating here!
I use Macs and PCs (running XP and NT) on a regular basis. Hardware recognition ("Plug and Play") is definitely better on the Mac. However, agree almost 100% with you that Windows XP has gotten much better in recognizing hardware. Through continued industry standardization, Windows is bound to get better with recognizing hardware.
Yes, but that's just the industry bending to MS's will, not Microsoft actually producing a quality product. That's what's so frustrating here!
No comments:
Post a Comment