dongmin
Aug 15, 03:20 PM
see a little demo animation for search inside the safari app.
http://www.handras.hu/stuff/ani2.movHas that pop-up video flavor, doesn't it??? Stylin...
http://www.handras.hu/stuff/ani2.movHas that pop-up video flavor, doesn't it??? Stylin...
centauratlas
Apr 14, 09:55 AM
Something like that I'm sure, you have:
ix.Mac.MarketingName
you have the "i", as in iOS
then you have the "x", as in OS X
and then you have the Mac
and you have the possibility of "iX" as in iOS X as in iOS for Mac OS X?
WHAT exactly it is or refers to, is an open question, but with the i, the X, and the Mac in the iOS App Store, it is definitely interesting.
Maybe a sign of universal iOS+Mac apps?
ix.Mac.MarketingName
you have the "i", as in iOS
then you have the "x", as in OS X
and then you have the Mac
and you have the possibility of "iX" as in iOS X as in iOS for Mac OS X?
WHAT exactly it is or refers to, is an open question, but with the i, the X, and the Mac in the iOS App Store, it is definitely interesting.
Maybe a sign of universal iOS+Mac apps?
MattInOz
Apr 18, 09:03 PM
I'm not really sure what the point would be. If you lay a 17 or 20 inch Mac down on your lap, give it a touch screen, and modify the interface so it's more suited to the less precise input of fingers� haven't you just created a bigger iPad? (Not that a bigger iPad wouldn't have it's uses, but it wouldn't be a Mac, and I'd question whether it would warrant yet another 'marketing name'.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.
This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.
I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.
To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.
As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.
It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.
Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.
This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.
I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.
To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.
As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.
It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.
Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.
Aetherhole
Mar 15, 12:25 AM
I will be at the Irvine Spectrum tomorrow morning for the opening. Hopefully there won't be too many people there!
more...
digitalnicotine
Jan 31, 04:37 PM
Say hello to Odin...
What a cutie! :)
What a cutie! :)
scmacdaddy
Mar 17, 04:47 PM
2 White Ipads 16GB! :apple:
Had fun in line too.
Waited from 7 AM.
Which store? I'm thinking about getting in line at 7 tomorrow either spectrum or fashion island.
Had fun in line too.
Waited from 7 AM.
Which store? I'm thinking about getting in line at 7 tomorrow either spectrum or fashion island.
more...
Legion93
May 1, 10:16 PM
Interesting when seen in terms of NATO backing off about deliberate attempts to kill Daffy.
It was UK prime minister Tony Blair who helped George W. Bush on military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, Bush sucked so bad at being a president.
It was UK prime minister Tony Blair who helped George W. Bush on military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, Bush sucked so bad at being a president.
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 08:51 AM
As a typical consumer, same as a prosumer, or pro -- speed. For example, backing up your iDevice, importing big megapixel photos and HD videos will be a whole lot quicker.
It will also make connections easier as TB can handled video, audio, and data in the same cable.
When is that going to happen?
I am not against Thunderbolt; not at all. I would love to have that kind of features in my iMac and a new Macbook Air if possible.
But when are we going to see those devices which take full advantage of Thunderbolt/LightPeak ports.
For eg,
- would it be possible to backup and sync full 64GB full iPad in 20s?
At the moment, NO.
- would it be possible to backup a whole TB of harddrive on an iMac in < 15 min?
At the moment, NO.
The question is:
For a consumer/pro-sumer, is Thunderbolt redundant for now? Will it take another generation of macbook pro's to generate pro-consumer Tunderbolt supported products?
Thanks for answering.
It will also make connections easier as TB can handled video, audio, and data in the same cable.
When is that going to happen?
I am not against Thunderbolt; not at all. I would love to have that kind of features in my iMac and a new Macbook Air if possible.
But when are we going to see those devices which take full advantage of Thunderbolt/LightPeak ports.
For eg,
- would it be possible to backup and sync full 64GB full iPad in 20s?
At the moment, NO.
- would it be possible to backup a whole TB of harddrive on an iMac in < 15 min?
At the moment, NO.
The question is:
For a consumer/pro-sumer, is Thunderbolt redundant for now? Will it take another generation of macbook pro's to generate pro-consumer Tunderbolt supported products?
Thanks for answering.
more...
uwetodd
Apr 26, 01:38 PM
Nice. Another awesome media streaming feature that will be choked by AT&T.
There will probably will be a push to utilize WIFI. Unless, of course, you're one of the "chosen" to have their unlimited data plans grandfathered and won't be impacted. ;)
Also, you'll be able to multi-task on the ATT network...
There will probably will be a push to utilize WIFI. Unless, of course, you're one of the "chosen" to have their unlimited data plans grandfathered and won't be impacted. ;)
Also, you'll be able to multi-task on the ATT network...
MacYale
Apr 22, 06:59 PM
The iphone 4 has an amazing design. the metal band is epic. the consistent thickness from top to bottom is ideal. it's incredible. the only thing i want improved is a larger screen�i was hoping for 4", but i'll take 3.7. i really don't see why they would do a design after 1 gen, especially one that seems to step backward into the ipod touch again. in fact, i would believe it more likely tha the next ipod touch would look more like the iphone 4.
more...
neil1980
Apr 25, 11:29 AM
What about a screen bigger than 21.5" but less than 27"?
Skint at the moment but exactly the above.
I was looking at the 24" and held off for the update when they did the 21.5 and 27.
21.5 is too small for me really and 27 is too big.... 24 would have been the ideal size really so I held off and in the end didn't bother.
Will probably get a 24" monitor and a henge dock or maybe a mac mini instead
Skint at the moment but exactly the above.
I was looking at the 24" and held off for the update when they did the 21.5 and 27.
21.5 is too small for me really and 27 is too big.... 24 would have been the ideal size really so I held off and in the end didn't bother.
Will probably get a 24" monitor and a henge dock or maybe a mac mini instead
pmz
Apr 28, 05:29 PM
If there is a physical difference, I find it strange that Apple A) wouldn't publish the numbers, and B) wouldn't provide specific sized bumpers for the white.
more...
leekohler
Mar 2, 09:44 AM
Well, his kids have been taken out of his custody. Wonder what's next?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/?watchId=21c214fa-e879-4539-8ff1-8562b2d5ddbb
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Police+remove+Charlie+Sheen+kids+from+home/4371625/story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/?watchId=21c214fa-e879-4539-8ff1-8562b2d5ddbb
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Police+remove+Charlie+Sheen+kids+from+home/4371625/story.html
Thataboy
Apr 26, 12:13 PM
Of course they would charge -- is anyone surprised by this?
If you copy your actual files to the cloud (a la iDisk or Amazon Cloud Drive), then no additional licensing is required (no matter what the labels say). If Apple wants to keep master files in the cloud, and have you verify you own a copy so you can have streaming access to that file -- that requires new licenses.
Licenses aren't made out of peaches and puppies. They cost money. If you want to argue Apple should eat the costs, out of the goodness of their hearts, well go ahead and argue that in crazyland.
Now, Apple COULD use this as a value-add to a structured MobileMe service. Even if they do, I imagine they'd have a separate music-only fee for those who don't want e-mail/iDisk etc.
This could even pave the way to a subscription model -- if Apple has every song in the cloud anyway, and they've gotten streaming licenses, I imagine it wouldn't be tough to start a Napster/Rhapsody style subscription plan.
If you copy your actual files to the cloud (a la iDisk or Amazon Cloud Drive), then no additional licensing is required (no matter what the labels say). If Apple wants to keep master files in the cloud, and have you verify you own a copy so you can have streaming access to that file -- that requires new licenses.
Licenses aren't made out of peaches and puppies. They cost money. If you want to argue Apple should eat the costs, out of the goodness of their hearts, well go ahead and argue that in crazyland.
Now, Apple COULD use this as a value-add to a structured MobileMe service. Even if they do, I imagine they'd have a separate music-only fee for those who don't want e-mail/iDisk etc.
This could even pave the way to a subscription model -- if Apple has every song in the cloud anyway, and they've gotten streaming licenses, I imagine it wouldn't be tough to start a Napster/Rhapsody style subscription plan.
more...
wmk461
Jan 30, 04:09 PM
I had an engineering friend that did exactly that in the early 1980s. He sold his house and all of his investments, and purchased gold. At the time it was trading right around $900/oz. Needless to say his expectation of the demise of the US Economy and upswing in gold value didn't pan out in the long term.
I saw him at a party over the holidays this past year and asked if he was excited to finally be near the break-even point again. He was not amused.
Gold goes up because of investor fears about market uncertainty and global uncertainty (and the bulk of global uncertainty is driven by US geopolitical actions). When the predicted global calamity doesn't happen, the price of gold declines again. Since we have been fortunate enough to be unable to test what happens after a global calamity, we can't be certain what will happen to the price of gold then. My guess is it will be worth slightly more than paper, and less than a loaf of bread.
I understand what you are saying and it makes sense, and I am gambling my extra money on geopolitical actions. In the 1980's gold was selling for nearly 3000.00 of today dollars. Switzerland is reporting a shortage of gold and Russia has announced that they will be backing up their currency with gold. Bottom line is I don't mind taking a chance on my research, especially with the tensions in the middle east.
I saw him at a party over the holidays this past year and asked if he was excited to finally be near the break-even point again. He was not amused.
Gold goes up because of investor fears about market uncertainty and global uncertainty (and the bulk of global uncertainty is driven by US geopolitical actions). When the predicted global calamity doesn't happen, the price of gold declines again. Since we have been fortunate enough to be unable to test what happens after a global calamity, we can't be certain what will happen to the price of gold then. My guess is it will be worth slightly more than paper, and less than a loaf of bread.
I understand what you are saying and it makes sense, and I am gambling my extra money on geopolitical actions. In the 1980's gold was selling for nearly 3000.00 of today dollars. Switzerland is reporting a shortage of gold and Russia has announced that they will be backing up their currency with gold. Bottom line is I don't mind taking a chance on my research, especially with the tensions in the middle east.
ChrisA
Nov 4, 12:17 PM
I use "VMWare Server" It runs on both Windows and Linux. Here is how it works: First I bring up a console window. THen I "connect" to a physical machine. Either the one I'm using or some other one on the network. Then I can "Power On" a Virtual machine. On power on I see the BIOS counting up memory and then booting off the boot device and finally it loads an OS. What this means, it that you have a set on physical machines and a set of virtual machines and the virtual machines can run on any of the physical machines and can eve be moved around. And all the displays are sent back to you workstation where you can tab between them. Another neat feature is the abilty to "snapshot" a VM. You ckick on "snapshoot" before you do something you might regret say you want to install some spyware thing just to see what it does. OK now you've seen it so you click "restore" and the computer is put back into the state of when it was snapshoted.
VMWare pioneered this whole ideal and has by for the best products. And so of them are free. If you have a Windows or Linux system go get VMware Server right now.
VMWare pioneered this whole ideal and has by for the best products. And so of them are free. If you have a Windows or Linux system go get VMware Server right now.
more...
gr8whtd0pe
Jan 31, 02:26 PM
http://itouch.net/
Ah, touche. But you know what I meant.
Ah, touche. But you know what I meant.
SirOmega
Oct 24, 09:13 AM
One thing that is buried in all of this is that Apple is FINALLY offering a magsafe airline power adaptor for their laptops, for $59.00. I have been doing a ton of cross-country flying recently, and carting two batteries to try to keep my laptop juiced up on the trip. I have waited for months for an in-flight power solution. Apple has finally come through with this! :D
I could have used this this past summer. Took forever to come out.
I could have used this this past summer. Took forever to come out.
SirROM
Jul 24, 10:38 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).
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).
Glideslope
Apr 22, 05:58 PM
I can't see them making the iPhone look like the iPod Touch.
Agreed. Therefore, it is fake. :apple:
Agreed. Therefore, it is fake. :apple:
gpc17
Apr 14, 12:32 PM
can someone tell me if gevey sim is still working on ios 4.3.2?
you can pm me as well...
thanks!!!
you can pm me as well...
thanks!!!
KnightWRX
Apr 16, 06:42 AM
Apple didn't buy iOS/OS X. They created it from scratch using components from UNIX/NeXTSTEP. Simple.
First, OS X is very much like the last versions of NeXTSTEP was, aside from Quartz/Appkit frameworks and GUI layer. Foundation is basically what was shipping in the 90s, the kernel/BSD userland, etc...
Apple has done a lot of work on it, and I've said so in my posts several times. I'm not diminishing their work in anyway. Again, I'm simply stating that pissing over Google because they "acquired" and used "open source" is quick disingenuous in the face of Apple having done the same for both their flagship OSes.
It's great that Google bought Android but there's a very few things google have done on their own.
How do you know ? You saw Android in 2005 ? You can seriously compare what Andy's company made back then to what is actually shipping now ? The evolution from Android 1.0 to 2.3/3.0 is quite astounding by itself, who knows what went on between 2005 and version 1.0 that shipped in late 2009.
Why even attempt to diminish the work ? Apple does the same acquisition, they use open source projects to quicken development. The histories are similar, the goals are similar. Why hate Google over it, and why do you think it doesn't also reflect on Apple when you do ?
I will leave the rest of your post out and just report it to the mods instead. I suggest editing your post to remove your clear lack of respect. If you want to discuss the merits of each at the fine detail, I don't think this is the thread for it. Again, let's drop the Google hate and talk OS X instead.
First, OS X is very much like the last versions of NeXTSTEP was, aside from Quartz/Appkit frameworks and GUI layer. Foundation is basically what was shipping in the 90s, the kernel/BSD userland, etc...
Apple has done a lot of work on it, and I've said so in my posts several times. I'm not diminishing their work in anyway. Again, I'm simply stating that pissing over Google because they "acquired" and used "open source" is quick disingenuous in the face of Apple having done the same for both their flagship OSes.
It's great that Google bought Android but there's a very few things google have done on their own.
How do you know ? You saw Android in 2005 ? You can seriously compare what Andy's company made back then to what is actually shipping now ? The evolution from Android 1.0 to 2.3/3.0 is quite astounding by itself, who knows what went on between 2005 and version 1.0 that shipped in late 2009.
Why even attempt to diminish the work ? Apple does the same acquisition, they use open source projects to quicken development. The histories are similar, the goals are similar. Why hate Google over it, and why do you think it doesn't also reflect on Apple when you do ?
I will leave the rest of your post out and just report it to the mods instead. I suggest editing your post to remove your clear lack of respect. If you want to discuss the merits of each at the fine detail, I don't think this is the thread for it. Again, let's drop the Google hate and talk OS X instead.
sparkomatic
Mar 11, 04:03 PM
Irvine Spectrum:
Line is going to the Sur la Table store.
They've come by twice already with water and umbrellas for shade!
Line is going to the Sur la Table store.
They've come by twice already with water and umbrellas for shade!
ucfgrad93
Mar 10, 02:55 PM
Sheen filed a lawsuit Thursday against Warner Bros. and "Two and a Half Men" producer Chuck Lorre for $100 million, plus punitive damages, TMZ reports.
Sheen, 45, is demanding he get paid for the eight "Two and a Half Men" episodes that were canceled this year, and he's also suing to gain lost wages and benefits for the show's crew.
Sheen's lawyer Marty Singer drafted the suit, and, according to TMZ, writes in the preamble: "Chuck Lorre, one of the richest men in television who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, believes himself to be so wealthy and powerful that he can unilaterally decide to take money away from the dedicated cast and crew of the popular television series, 'Two and a Half Men,' in order to serve his own ego and self-interest, and make the star of the Series the scapegoat for Lorre's own conduct."
The suit blames the show's cancellation on "Warner Bros. capitulating to Lorre's egotistical desire to punish Mr. Sheen."
Poor Charlie, I never knew that he was completely innocent of all this and just a poor victim.:rolleyes: While I feel bad for everyone else on the show loosing out financially, I hope Time Warner fights this and that Charlie doesn't get a penny out of it. Honestly, I just wish the earth would swallow this idiot up.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/10/charlie-sheen-suing-half-men-100-milion/#ixzz1GES5CWCR
Sheen, 45, is demanding he get paid for the eight "Two and a Half Men" episodes that were canceled this year, and he's also suing to gain lost wages and benefits for the show's crew.
Sheen's lawyer Marty Singer drafted the suit, and, according to TMZ, writes in the preamble: "Chuck Lorre, one of the richest men in television who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, believes himself to be so wealthy and powerful that he can unilaterally decide to take money away from the dedicated cast and crew of the popular television series, 'Two and a Half Men,' in order to serve his own ego and self-interest, and make the star of the Series the scapegoat for Lorre's own conduct."
The suit blames the show's cancellation on "Warner Bros. capitulating to Lorre's egotistical desire to punish Mr. Sheen."
Poor Charlie, I never knew that he was completely innocent of all this and just a poor victim.:rolleyes: While I feel bad for everyone else on the show loosing out financially, I hope Time Warner fights this and that Charlie doesn't get a penny out of it. Honestly, I just wish the earth would swallow this idiot up.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/10/charlie-sheen-suing-half-men-100-milion/#ixzz1GES5CWCR
