robbieduncan
Oct 24, 09:11 AM
So how long do you think before I can pick one of these up in the refurbished store?
1-2 months. At least.
1-2 months. At least.
kalsta
May 3, 08:22 AM
To work well it needs to contain all your apps and system files. For most people this means at least 100GB these days. Shockingly when I got my MBP in 2008 I thought a 200 GB drive would do it all for me. That really didn't last long at all.
Out of the factory, all the system files and bundled apps take up about 20GB. I can't imagine many people then install an addition 80GB worth of apps. If you're using up that sort of space, I'm guessing you're storing a fair bit of video.
My own personal setup is 128 GB SSD for current work. Old stuff gets archived to an external 2TB HD. It works for me.
Out of the factory, all the system files and bundled apps take up about 20GB. I can't imagine many people then install an addition 80GB worth of apps. If you're using up that sort of space, I'm guessing you're storing a fair bit of video.
My own personal setup is 128 GB SSD for current work. Old stuff gets archived to an external 2TB HD. It works for me.
hayesk
Jul 26, 04:02 PM
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click.
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
one1
Apr 17, 05:36 PM
This update was unfortunately a horrible bust for me. Autoimporter is not working properly for my iPhone. Safari is crashing on pages where it wasn't before. IDK, maybe it'll work itself out........
mingspace
Oct 24, 08:59 AM
Mac Store employees *don't* know anything specific about product updates.
There's almost 1000 Apple store employees worldwide. If they knew details, don't you find it really, really odd that none of them leaked any?
Yes. But not so much about product updates. More about the history of the updates in the paste was what I was talking about.
There's almost 1000 Apple store employees worldwide. If they knew details, don't you find it really, really odd that none of them leaked any?
Yes. But not so much about product updates. More about the history of the updates in the paste was what I was talking about.
QCassidy352
Jul 25, 10:08 AM
oh, I forgot to mention one good thing about this mouse. Presumably it will work correctly with the option "allow bluetooth devices to wake this computer." 3rd party mice wake the computer up over and over ever since 10.4.6 when that option is checked. Of course, it would be nicer if apple would just fix their stupid OS version so that all BT mice worked correctly and not just their own... :rolleyes:
DTphonehome
Jul 24, 03:49 PM
It's about time. But I've had a wireless mouse/keyboard set when I got my iMac G5 Rev. A back in the day, and I quickly got rid of it. I was sick and tired of changing the damn batteries every few weeks. I never mouse or type away from my desk, so I had no use for it, and I'd rather have the ugly wires than deal with the annoyance of buying/changing batteries often. Now, if they were rechargeable (in a dock, I don't want to have to take them out and put them in a seperate charger), I could see using them.
mc68k
Dec 2, 12:36 PM
i'm already over it, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter too much. if i were to be credited all the stuff over the years i should have been im sure id have 100s of thousands more points :(
Sodner
Apr 14, 07:29 AM
Sorry, this is a dumb question.
Whats a 16 GB AT&T iPhone cost without a 2 year plan?
Whats a 16 GB AT&T iPhone cost without a 2 year plan?
Slim02
Apr 30, 01:11 AM
I believe that Amazon uses 256 kbps variable bit rate compression for their MP3 Download store. Why MP3? The reason is simple: it allows maximum compatibility with all music players that can play back MP3 files out there. Sure, Amazon could use the AAC 256 kbps VBR format, but outside of the iPod support for the AAC format is iffy at best (only the higher end players from Sandisk's Sansa line and Creative support AAC).
I guessing you been living under a rock.. Because my Truck CD Player plays AAC, PS3, Xbox360, PSP, DSi, 3DS, my wife and daughter's Android phone all play AAC.. The list can go on... Google is your friend....
I guessing you been living under a rock.. Because my Truck CD Player plays AAC, PS3, Xbox360, PSP, DSi, 3DS, my wife and daughter's Android phone all play AAC.. The list can go on... Google is your friend....
-aggie-
Apr 30, 04:02 PM
That's what he said. Reread what he wrote.
He�s from Ireland, so maybe it�s a language barrier. :)
He�s from Ireland, so maybe it�s a language barrier. :)
dXTC
Dec 30, 08:33 AM
A wild Snorlax appears....
Yeah, I've heard that before. Apparently, she's become somewhat of a cliche' in Photoshop contests on Fark.com.
Yeah, I've heard that before. Apparently, she's become somewhat of a cliche' in Photoshop contests on Fark.com.
LT1FirebirdSLP
May 4, 06:31 AM
Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever.........
...take anything an AT&T rep says at face value. This is coming from a type of representative, where in my battles earlier this year with AT&T attempting to get back to unlimited data, who told me there was nothing they could do but gave me advice on how to seamlessly switch to Verizon (including how to port my phone number and suggested I keep my AT&T account open until I switch to VZ).
While I fully believe this story did actually take place, I believe the rep has 'ZERO' credibility.
FYI: My later wrangling with corporate was a lot more pleasant and yielded me my Unlimited iPhone data plan back.
...take anything an AT&T rep says at face value. This is coming from a type of representative, where in my battles earlier this year with AT&T attempting to get back to unlimited data, who told me there was nothing they could do but gave me advice on how to seamlessly switch to Verizon (including how to port my phone number and suggested I keep my AT&T account open until I switch to VZ).
While I fully believe this story did actually take place, I believe the rep has 'ZERO' credibility.
FYI: My later wrangling with corporate was a lot more pleasant and yielded me my Unlimited iPhone data plan back.
cmaier
Apr 23, 10:02 AM
Apple is glad it's fast! They are glad the system works very differently.
How long did the MS vs Apple and MS antitrust suits last?
The patent infringement defendant is never glad to be in a fast venue. It's a huge advantage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a huge headstart before the suit is even filed.
How long did the MS vs Apple and MS antitrust suits last?
The patent infringement defendant is never glad to be in a fast venue. It's a huge advantage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a huge headstart before the suit is even filed.
yellow
Dec 1, 02:57 PM
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Of course, and I meant that in the 'general sense'. I have long since abandoned the use of Classic on any of my OS X Macs or any of the Macs I support. AppleTalk is so deprecated that I can hardly believe that anyone will be able to use it much longer. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if it was completely absent from 10.5.
As for the AFP needing AppleTalk, I'm glad you linked the correction. As AppleTalk was an Apple prorietary networking protocol and more and more places were dropping support for AppleTalk routing between subnets/routers (it is PROHIBITIVELY expensive for routers that will pass AT traffic) AFP moved to AFPoverTCP.
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
Of course, and I meant that in the 'general sense'. I have long since abandoned the use of Classic on any of my OS X Macs or any of the Macs I support. AppleTalk is so deprecated that I can hardly believe that anyone will be able to use it much longer. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if it was completely absent from 10.5.
As for the AFP needing AppleTalk, I'm glad you linked the correction. As AppleTalk was an Apple prorietary networking protocol and more and more places were dropping support for AppleTalk routing between subnets/routers (it is PROHIBITIVELY expensive for routers that will pass AT traffic) AFP moved to AFPoverTCP.
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
celebrian23
Jul 24, 10:52 PM
<So, there you have it a completely enclosed ipod, so elegant as not to have a single button or port opening or anything but a beautiful screen.>
I think there is a hole in this argument/dream. Apple has spent considerable time and marketing money in the Made for iPod campaign that centers arounds the dock connector. They have created the Universal dock and inserts for all recent iPods, promising to keep these updated with all new iPods in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I seriously doubt these new no touch iPods wouldn't have at least a dock connector. It allows third parties to keep their investment in accessories without getting pissed at Apple for changing the rules again. How about all these car interfaces that are just now gaining traction in new automobiles for example? They need the dock connector to work. Without the third party economy and proprietary ports, there is also little to keep the MS Menace at bay, despite the coolness of such a product.
Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).
oh thank you for the answers, oh great enlightened one
I think there is a hole in this argument/dream. Apple has spent considerable time and marketing money in the Made for iPod campaign that centers arounds the dock connector. They have created the Universal dock and inserts for all recent iPods, promising to keep these updated with all new iPods in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I seriously doubt these new no touch iPods wouldn't have at least a dock connector. It allows third parties to keep their investment in accessories without getting pissed at Apple for changing the rules again. How about all these car interfaces that are just now gaining traction in new automobiles for example? They need the dock connector to work. Without the third party economy and proprietary ports, there is also little to keep the MS Menace at bay, despite the coolness of such a product.
Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).
oh thank you for the answers, oh great enlightened one
Stetrain
Apr 17, 01:58 AM
Hmmm, lots of people seem to assume that "Universal iOS+Mac Apps" means running an iPhone app in a window/emulator on your Mac.
That's not what I meant at all.
Look at Universal iPhone/iPad apps. Same app by the same developer but it presents a different interface for different devices. It also means that buying the app once lets you use it on multiple types of device. Why not let developers do the same thing with Mac apps? Many probably wouldn't want to but it wouldn't hurt to have the option.
Buy X-Twitter-App for $4.99 and you get it on iPhone, iPad, and your Mac!
You aren't running an app with an iOS interface on your Mac, you're running an app with an interface built for running on a Mac.
That's not what I meant at all.
Look at Universal iPhone/iPad apps. Same app by the same developer but it presents a different interface for different devices. It also means that buying the app once lets you use it on multiple types of device. Why not let developers do the same thing with Mac apps? Many probably wouldn't want to but it wouldn't hurt to have the option.
Buy X-Twitter-App for $4.99 and you get it on iPhone, iPad, and your Mac!
You aren't running an app with an iOS interface on your Mac, you're running an app with an interface built for running on a Mac.
lordonuthin
Nov 27, 02:49 PM
are you running the console version? most people around here usually run that (i think) in terminal. that's what i do. and i'd advise that for you as well. that way, you just add "-bigadv" in the terminal command.
but i think you can do it in the other version as well. basically yes, all you need to add is "-bigadv"
You may need to set the unit size in config to "big", it wont take bigadv units if it is set to normal.
but i think you can do it in the other version as well. basically yes, all you need to add is "-bigadv"
You may need to set the unit size in config to "big", it wont take bigadv units if it is set to normal.
csalm87
Apr 15, 03:22 PM
so 10.8 might be cougar. but if so the system requirements will make it only run on older hardware.....
LMAO! Good one.
LMAO! Good one.
cleanup
Apr 5, 08:08 PM
iPhone shot.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5105/5593973458_f71b63ba1c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/albertintoronto/5593973458/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5105/5593973458_f71b63ba1c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/albertintoronto/5593973458/)
tominated
Jul 25, 01:29 AM
about bloody time!
robeddie
Apr 21, 07:14 PM
So your link is to an article where the writer has no clue why it wasn't done? Not very useful. Again, I don't get why people don't get this. A backlight keyboard takes more room. Not a lot but some. The new MBAs are thinner with larger batteries than the first. Seems pretty reasonable it wouldn't fit. Note this is Apple, which do you think they would chose, thinner or a backlight keyboard?
Cool. Then in a couple months, when the new macbook air is released and its as thin, or thinner than the current model AND includes a backlit keyboard, you'll come back here and admit you were ignorant, right?
Cool. Then in a couple months, when the new macbook air is released and its as thin, or thinner than the current model AND includes a backlit keyboard, you'll come back here and admit you were ignorant, right?
Uragon
Apr 25, 12:39 PM
I've got a 2.5 yr old MacBook that is feeling stretched with Aperture. I've been thinking that an iMac / iPad combination would be a good replacement.
Anyone with experience in getting iPads to work with iMacs (specifically remote access)?
I have been thinking same, new iMac and the iPad 2.
Anyone with experience in getting iPads to work with iMacs (specifically remote access)?
I have been thinking same, new iMac and the iPad 2.
Cigsm
Apr 30, 07:41 PM
You can't beat it because it's a pirate site. NONE of the money from the site goes to the artists, songwriters, producers, labels, etc.
There's a reason it's based out of Russia. So I hope you're happy knowing your essentially buying stolen property.
I don't buy from either of these any more after being introduced to Gomusicnow.com (or any of the other 25 similar sites). 9 cents per song, or ~$.80-$1.5 per ALBUM. Quality 320 for most newer albums and 220-300 for older. Can't beat it.
There's a reason it's based out of Russia. So I hope you're happy knowing your essentially buying stolen property.
I don't buy from either of these any more after being introduced to Gomusicnow.com (or any of the other 25 similar sites). 9 cents per song, or ~$.80-$1.5 per ALBUM. Quality 320 for most newer albums and 220-300 for older. Can't beat it.
No comments:
Post a Comment