Cougarcat
Mar 26, 07:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
balamw
Apr 6, 04:32 PM
Because as we all know Costco is the leading reseller and indicator for technology products.
I've found it to be a pretty good indicator of products that aren't selling well elsewhere especially when they show up in pallets at prices lower than most other places.
This happened with the last PPC Mac Mini's and AppleTV 1.
B
I've found it to be a pretty good indicator of products that aren't selling well elsewhere especially when they show up in pallets at prices lower than most other places.
This happened with the last PPC Mac Mini's and AppleTV 1.
B
adamfilip
Sep 13, 12:57 PM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
No software such as, Cinema 4D, Motion, Aperture, Final Cut Pro etc
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
No software such as, Cinema 4D, Motion, Aperture, Final Cut Pro etc
grue
Apr 12, 12:54 AM
Barely any of these are features you NEED. Yes we all want a faster NLE, but people are talking like FCP doesn't work, and is light years behind. All it needs is an update to 64 bit, new quicktime platform, and some other things which I won't go into.
Are you saying you would prefer they give it the ability to use more memory before they give it the ability to use more processing cores? Because that's the only thing 64bit is going to give you.
Yes, it does most of what I "need", but the competition does most of them better. Final Cut used to be cutting edge, now it's slow, inefficient and buggy.
Are you saying you would prefer they give it the ability to use more memory before they give it the ability to use more processing cores? Because that's the only thing 64bit is going to give you.
Yes, it does most of what I "need", but the competition does most of them better. Final Cut used to be cutting edge, now it's slow, inefficient and buggy.
Liske
Aug 17, 11:56 PM
Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.
Silent, thanks for speaking up, I'll check it out! Too bad its not UB.
Silent, thanks for speaking up, I'll check it out! Too bad its not UB.
mcrain
Mar 22, 10:09 AM
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable...
I was stewing about this, and went to the Google News page, more "liberal" sites like the Huffington Post or MSNBC, my local paper, FoxNews and in every case, there were stories that were either critical or were about the criticism or the reasons for the criticism of the Libya action. (Stories about Senator XYZ saying coalition has issues vs. a story about the issues with the coaltion). So, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream media are covering this story, and reporting both the white house story and providing analysis and criticism.
I'm confused by what you think is so hypocritical or who you think is being such.
Are you talking about hipocracy from "the left in the media" or the left?" Do you expect every story to be critical of President Obama and Libya? Do you think every story that came out during the GWB administration was critical of Afghanistan or Iraq? Especially in the first days? Do you think every story from certain media outlets is liberal? I mean, is a story automatically liberal because it comes from NPR, or say, MSNBC or Huffington Post? Someone critiqued your using Fox News as a source, but what you quoted was mainly just facts. I think Fox News often inserts more of their spin into stories than their competitors (and as a result, their news reporting often appears tainted or is assumed tainted), and they are always supportive of the GOP, but that doesn't mean that I think the facts they report are any less fact. Is critique of the President from MSNBC any less critique because its coming from MSNBC? Are you suspicious of their criticism? Do you think they are using kid gloves? Would you expect a hypothetical neutral news site (if it exists) to be more critical? Would it be as critical and partisan as Fox News?
On the other hand, are you talking about hipocracy by those on the left, in the media? I mean, you quoted the President and what he said. If so, it really hasn't got anything to do with the media, right? Also, doesn't it seem like President Obama got pushed into this conflict? There were allies and some organizations clamoring for involvement, unlike prior to Iraq. The President was making statements that indicated reluctance to get involved. The military was saying it would not be simple, would involve real attacks, and it may be too late. But, there was pushing by our allies, human rights groups, etc... Plus, aren't we on the hook to have our allies backs? I mean, isn't the US on the hook to pay back a lot of favors to the Iraq/Afghanistan coalitions?
Unlike Iraq where the President was actively trying to sell the public on a conflict he, and a small group of insiders, wanted. Using evidence that was weak at best, and we now know was false. This salesmanship initially received pretty positive reporting, which only turned really sour as the evidence of betrayal and lies started coming out.
I was stewing about this, and went to the Google News page, more "liberal" sites like the Huffington Post or MSNBC, my local paper, FoxNews and in every case, there were stories that were either critical or were about the criticism or the reasons for the criticism of the Libya action. (Stories about Senator XYZ saying coalition has issues vs. a story about the issues with the coaltion). So, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream media are covering this story, and reporting both the white house story and providing analysis and criticism.
I'm confused by what you think is so hypocritical or who you think is being such.
Are you talking about hipocracy from "the left in the media" or the left?" Do you expect every story to be critical of President Obama and Libya? Do you think every story that came out during the GWB administration was critical of Afghanistan or Iraq? Especially in the first days? Do you think every story from certain media outlets is liberal? I mean, is a story automatically liberal because it comes from NPR, or say, MSNBC or Huffington Post? Someone critiqued your using Fox News as a source, but what you quoted was mainly just facts. I think Fox News often inserts more of their spin into stories than their competitors (and as a result, their news reporting often appears tainted or is assumed tainted), and they are always supportive of the GOP, but that doesn't mean that I think the facts they report are any less fact. Is critique of the President from MSNBC any less critique because its coming from MSNBC? Are you suspicious of their criticism? Do you think they are using kid gloves? Would you expect a hypothetical neutral news site (if it exists) to be more critical? Would it be as critical and partisan as Fox News?
On the other hand, are you talking about hipocracy by those on the left, in the media? I mean, you quoted the President and what he said. If so, it really hasn't got anything to do with the media, right? Also, doesn't it seem like President Obama got pushed into this conflict? There were allies and some organizations clamoring for involvement, unlike prior to Iraq. The President was making statements that indicated reluctance to get involved. The military was saying it would not be simple, would involve real attacks, and it may be too late. But, there was pushing by our allies, human rights groups, etc... Plus, aren't we on the hook to have our allies backs? I mean, isn't the US on the hook to pay back a lot of favors to the Iraq/Afghanistan coalitions?
Unlike Iraq where the President was actively trying to sell the public on a conflict he, and a small group of insiders, wanted. Using evidence that was weak at best, and we now know was false. This salesmanship initially received pretty positive reporting, which only turned really sour as the evidence of betrayal and lies started coming out.
fithian
Apr 8, 07:55 AM
Just for entertainment, go to a Worst Buy and sidle up to a sales guy giving his pitch to an unsuspecting victim. I only ever go there to see a model in person before ordering online or elsewhere. I do purchase items at local stores who respect the customer and don't tell blatant lies about the products.
sukanas
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
money grubbers
DVK916
Jul 27, 11:02 AM
Only the Mac Mini and the iMac's processor can be replaced. the MacBook and MacBook Pro have the processor soldered into the motherboard.
No, this isn't true. All of them have a socket cpu that can be replaced.
No, this isn't true. All of them have a socket cpu that can be replaced.
Dont Hurt Me
Jul 14, 02:40 PM
I hope this is just smoke and mirrors for a brand new enclosure that brings back some coolness,style, and great looks. There shouldnt be any reason a new pro Mac cant hold more then 1 optical drive? My 2 yr old Aurora can hold 4. The G5 Powermacs didnt use space very well if you ask me, Im sure Jobs will have a all new enclosure otherwise it will be a ho humm WWDC.
braddouglass
Apr 6, 01:07 PM
Awesome, can't wait.
Picking up the 11" soon as they are out.
RICH B!tch! hahaha
I'm referring to his iMac and MBP and Iphone and Ipad and soon to be MBA
Picking up the 11" soon as they are out.
RICH B!tch! hahaha
I'm referring to his iMac and MBP and Iphone and Ipad and soon to be MBA
Andrew7724
Aug 6, 01:33 AM
yes, i DO NOT want to see a new design of the macbook pro. haahah :P
I just got mine a month ago, it would suck if there is a better design this year.
But... i don't really care if there was just a speed bump with that new intel chip. I'm fine with that as long as they keep everything else the same...
yes I know I'm kind of selfish... :P
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
on the front row topic...
the front row remote thing... apple could do a bluetooth remote.
I just got mine a month ago, it would suck if there is a better design this year.
But... i don't really care if there was just a speed bump with that new intel chip. I'm fine with that as long as they keep everything else the same...
yes I know I'm kind of selfish... :P
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
on the front row topic...
the front row remote thing... apple could do a bluetooth remote.
mlmathews
Apr 11, 11:25 AM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
Bosunsfate
Aug 5, 04:44 PM
I'm sure it will have a sensor on the computer... but as an added selling point, a second sensor on the Apple display... so you can put your computer under your desk and still use Front Row.
I agree. You'll have multiple options either way.
I think the really big display update, would be just that. A 40" or 50" monitor.:rolleyes:
I agree. You'll have multiple options either way.
I think the really big display update, would be just that. A 40" or 50" monitor.:rolleyes:
REDolution
Apr 12, 05:05 PM
For me personally, as a proud Red One owner, I really hope that the new FCP has native RED support without Log and Transfer and can also utilise our RED Rocket.
11thIndian
Apr 5, 10:14 PM
sorry but that's not the case. While some contend it's jaw-dropping, that's only because they're stacking it up against what FCS is currently. Compared to what Avid and Adobe are doing, Apple now has a mountain to climb. Apple has been too interested in their entertainment business to worry about their "pro" line (hardware/software). I know quite a few studios who have already shifted BACK to Avid and some are taking on the Adobe Suite completely as their software of choice. While some may find the new FCS exciting, and it does have some bells and whistles, it's typical Apple doing an incremental bump to keep up with what others are doing. Sad really.
So if you were one of the 100 people up to now who's seen it and can accurately make this evaluation, let's see your invite....
So if you were one of the 100 people up to now who's seen it and can accurately make this evaluation, let's see your invite....
DakotaGuy
Aug 11, 02:05 PM
The only way this iPhone or whatever it is called will be successful is if they team up with a carrier or carriers and offer promotions on it like all the other cell phone manufactures do. I am not sure about Europe or other parts of the world, but people are used to getting a decent phone for not much money either at their initial contract or every 2 years when the contract is up. Selling an unlocked phone at some outrageous price ($200-300) is not going to cut it when I can go down and get a decent phone for around $50 with rebates from the cell provider and whoever made the phone.
Now I know there are plenty of people who would buy an Apple phone no matter the price, but if you are going to compete with companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. you have to work with carriers and provide great contract prices.
The whole CDMA v. GSM debate is kind of like the PowerPC v. x86 debate.lol Actually from everything I have read CDMA is actually the newer of the 2 technologies and actually has a lot of benefits over GSM. In then end however, both work fine. I think in the US you will find CDMA has a lot better coverage if you look at the coverage maps on the providers websites. With GSM you hit a lot of dead space especially in the rural areas. CDMA pretty much covers the entire US. Now in Europe I know it is different and that GSM is the standard.
Now I know there are plenty of people who would buy an Apple phone no matter the price, but if you are going to compete with companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. you have to work with carriers and provide great contract prices.
The whole CDMA v. GSM debate is kind of like the PowerPC v. x86 debate.lol Actually from everything I have read CDMA is actually the newer of the 2 technologies and actually has a lot of benefits over GSM. In then end however, both work fine. I think in the US you will find CDMA has a lot better coverage if you look at the coverage maps on the providers websites. With GSM you hit a lot of dead space especially in the rural areas. CDMA pretty much covers the entire US. Now in Europe I know it is different and that GSM is the standard.
iLilana
Apr 8, 01:19 AM
bestbuy (and futureshop..same company) insist apple purchasers buy their own over priced ****** extended warranty on apple products. I'm not sure its allowed by apple or not but it seems a bit shady. I hate shopping in those places.
Backup15andpunt
Nov 29, 01:34 AM
Here an idea. Have Apple buy Universal. Then Microsoft and pay Apple for every Zune it sells. Of course the government might frown on this kind of purchase.
Number 41
Apr 6, 04:24 PM
If you bought 2 Xooms would you have a Mazda?
That's fantastic.
That's fantastic.
kdarling
Apr 6, 03:01 PM
But he then said after how well it would work on the phone, they put the tablet project on the shelf and focused on the phone as it was more important. Which means it was a tablet and no just a touch screen device in the beginning.
Sure, it could've been a full tablet. It just didn't have iOS, is my point.
People misremember a lot. You know how it goes: a story always gets better as time goes by :)
For example, in the later tablet version we are told that seeing kinetic scrolling on the demo made him want for Apple to build a touch phone:
“I had this idea about having a glass display, a multitouch display you could type on with your fingers. I asked our folks: could we come up with a multitouch display that we could type on? And six months later, they came back with this prototype display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys and he called me back a few weeks later and had intertial scrolling working and I thought, ‘my God, we can build a phone with this!’ So we put the tablet on the shelf… and we went to work on the iPhone.”
Yet, years before in one of the first iPhone articles in we were told that kinetic scrolling came later on:
"At one point, Mr. Jobs got a call from one of the iPhone engineers with an idea: Why not allow iPhone users to navigate through both song collections and contacts stored on the device by simply flicking their fingers up and down across the surface of the touch-screen? The engineer gave Mr. Jobs a demonstration of the technology, and the Apple chief executive signed off on it immediately, according to a person familiar with the process."
I'd love one day for a definitive history to come out, so we can know the full timing, and also credit those unsung engineers who actually invented it all.
Sure, it could've been a full tablet. It just didn't have iOS, is my point.
People misremember a lot. You know how it goes: a story always gets better as time goes by :)
For example, in the later tablet version we are told that seeing kinetic scrolling on the demo made him want for Apple to build a touch phone:
“I had this idea about having a glass display, a multitouch display you could type on with your fingers. I asked our folks: could we come up with a multitouch display that we could type on? And six months later, they came back with this prototype display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys and he called me back a few weeks later and had intertial scrolling working and I thought, ‘my God, we can build a phone with this!’ So we put the tablet on the shelf… and we went to work on the iPhone.”
Yet, years before in one of the first iPhone articles in we were told that kinetic scrolling came later on:
"At one point, Mr. Jobs got a call from one of the iPhone engineers with an idea: Why not allow iPhone users to navigate through both song collections and contacts stored on the device by simply flicking their fingers up and down across the surface of the touch-screen? The engineer gave Mr. Jobs a demonstration of the technology, and the Apple chief executive signed off on it immediately, according to a person familiar with the process."
I'd love one day for a definitive history to come out, so we can know the full timing, and also credit those unsung engineers who actually invented it all.
GregA
Mar 26, 08:06 PM
does anyone else thing launchpad is the worst idea yet?
I did, until I saw why they were doing it.
On the iPad or Mac, whatever you're doing you'll be able to pinch your 5 fingers together (or press the home button on iPad or iPhone) and it'll bring up your apps so you can launch something else. It's just a consistency thing.
He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing.
Well, cues in the interface, and the same underlying OS. That's all it is for now. Mac OSX has a lot of extra options.
(Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
iOS has to grow up, especially with respect to File Management. I think iOS 5 will go a long way in this area.
Once we get to iOS 6 I think we may start seeing iOS as the default Mac OS, with an optional OSX install (like X11 is) that extends it to do everything we expect from OSX (access to the file systems etc., perhaps even required for installation of non-app store programs). It may even be something where someone with "administrator" privileges gets the OSX add ons, while standard users do not.
I did, until I saw why they were doing it.
On the iPad or Mac, whatever you're doing you'll be able to pinch your 5 fingers together (or press the home button on iPad or iPhone) and it'll bring up your apps so you can launch something else. It's just a consistency thing.
He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing.
Well, cues in the interface, and the same underlying OS. That's all it is for now. Mac OSX has a lot of extra options.
(Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
iOS has to grow up, especially with respect to File Management. I think iOS 5 will go a long way in this area.
Once we get to iOS 6 I think we may start seeing iOS as the default Mac OS, with an optional OSX install (like X11 is) that extends it to do everything we expect from OSX (access to the file systems etc., perhaps even required for installation of non-app store programs). It may even be something where someone with "administrator" privileges gets the OSX add ons, while standard users do not.
theBB
Aug 11, 07:28 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
Banjhiyi
Mar 26, 07:14 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Been on Lion for the past month and I can't see myself going back to Snow Leopard.
This WILL be a landmark release for Apple and huge step forward in usability. It just ties everything together: one simple, elegant, functional, totally scalable OS. Apple will have achieved in no time at all what the competition is just beginning to attempt (and fail at constantly.)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
I think it's artificial belly-aching on MacRumors in order to get attention.
Am I getting warmer?
Yes, absolutely. After all, I've got form for it. :rolleyes:
Been on Lion for the past month and I can't see myself going back to Snow Leopard.
This WILL be a landmark release for Apple and huge step forward in usability. It just ties everything together: one simple, elegant, functional, totally scalable OS. Apple will have achieved in no time at all what the competition is just beginning to attempt (and fail at constantly.)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
I think it's artificial belly-aching on MacRumors in order to get attention.
Am I getting warmer?
Yes, absolutely. After all, I've got form for it. :rolleyes:
