BLUELION
Apr 5, 01:55 PM
Apple did not sue. They made a request to Toyota, and Toyota valuing income and a business partnership, made the decision to stop what they were doing. No lawsuit involved.
Go ahead and jail break you device, it doesn't really matter if you do. But the problem is not about the end user here, which as the right to jailbreak, the issue is with business entities engaging in facilitating a jailbreak such as what Toyota did.
No they didn�t. They ruled that distributing custom (jailbroken) firmware wasn�t in violation of copyright law.
Apple can�t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Go ahead and jail break you device, it doesn't really matter if you do. But the problem is not about the end user here, which as the right to jailbreak, the issue is with business entities engaging in facilitating a jailbreak such as what Toyota did.
No they didn�t. They ruled that distributing custom (jailbroken) firmware wasn�t in violation of copyright law.
Apple can�t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Wattser93
Nov 28, 10:38 AM
It's convenient. Any time I'm going to transfer media to my Windows machines from my Mac, I run it through the scan on my Mac so I don't spread a dormant virus to my PCs.
MadDog31
Mar 26, 10:26 PM
I just don't understand the thought of an iPad 3 this fall. Unless they're trying to line up iPad updates with iPod updates, I don't see how this is possible or even really needed. I like the timing of the current releases. It offsets any updates of iPhones and iPods because they all have different release times.
Having iOS 5 this fall does make sense, honestly.
Having iOS 5 this fall does make sense, honestly.
Kensai
Apr 20, 08:40 AM
Three initials: NFC
Come on, Apple, reinvent the market yet again! :cool:
Come on, Apple, reinvent the market yet again! :cool:
twoodcc
Aug 4, 05:20 PM
..and in the case of x86-64 (Intel and AMD) the 64 bit mode of operation allows the CPU to expose more registers for use at compile time (and few other improvements). This can improve optimizations that the compiler can make which can improve the performance of the application it builds.
Also the ability to do integer math using 64 bit wide registers with 64 bit wide functional unit can be a decent performance win for several types of tasks.
yeah, what he said :p i knew someone would back me up
Also the ability to do integer math using 64 bit wide registers with 64 bit wide functional unit can be a decent performance win for several types of tasks.
yeah, what he said :p i knew someone would back me up
mmoosa
Mar 28, 09:43 AM
That's just getting complacent in my opinion, people like myself like changing phones yearly, no new iPhone means no return business, I'll try something else instead, bad move if true.
Elijahg
Apr 23, 06:45 PM
Instead of pixel based images that are just bigger, why not simply ship vector based icons/wallpapers ?
KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.
I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).
Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
Translating a photo to a vector based format would be completely pointless and would end up massive. Take for example the Snow Leopard Prowl JPEG. It's 1.2MB, and converting to BMP or TIFF (both describe each pixel individually, i.e. lossless) makes it 12mb, 10 times the size. Converting it to the much less efficient SVG, makes it insanely massive; 225mb or 187.5 times bigger to be exact.
Computer generated imagery can be converted to a vector format more efficiently, as long as the source is available. The computer knows that for example, there is a gradient starting at X,Y and ending at X,Y with colour RGB at the start, and colour RGB at the end. Thus eliminating the need to keep detail about each pixel individually. This is great for things such as icons and certain web images, but for images with lots of detail, it quickly becomes much less efficient than even the highest quality JPEG. For real photos, it's pointless to vectorize. You'd just end up pixellating the image when scaled over it's original size anyway. So in other words, it's unlikely we'll see vector graphics for most icons and most certainly not for desktop backgrounds.
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them... I'm sure it wouldn't keep them away from iOS development for [i]too[/] long to add the latest, even as BTO. Valve has really helped gaming on the Mac, bringing great new releases like Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 at the same time as Windows. At least it seems Apple have had a kick up their ass from Valve pointing out the inefficiencies in OpenGL. Maybe that's what's made them hire a few gaming-type developers...? C'mon Apple!
KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.
I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).
Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
Translating a photo to a vector based format would be completely pointless and would end up massive. Take for example the Snow Leopard Prowl JPEG. It's 1.2MB, and converting to BMP or TIFF (both describe each pixel individually, i.e. lossless) makes it 12mb, 10 times the size. Converting it to the much less efficient SVG, makes it insanely massive; 225mb or 187.5 times bigger to be exact.
Computer generated imagery can be converted to a vector format more efficiently, as long as the source is available. The computer knows that for example, there is a gradient starting at X,Y and ending at X,Y with colour RGB at the start, and colour RGB at the end. Thus eliminating the need to keep detail about each pixel individually. This is great for things such as icons and certain web images, but for images with lots of detail, it quickly becomes much less efficient than even the highest quality JPEG. For real photos, it's pointless to vectorize. You'd just end up pixellating the image when scaled over it's original size anyway. So in other words, it's unlikely we'll see vector graphics for most icons and most certainly not for desktop backgrounds.
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them... I'm sure it wouldn't keep them away from iOS development for [i]too[/] long to add the latest, even as BTO. Valve has really helped gaming on the Mac, bringing great new releases like Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 at the same time as Windows. At least it seems Apple have had a kick up their ass from Valve pointing out the inefficiencies in OpenGL. Maybe that's what's made them hire a few gaming-type developers...? C'mon Apple!
Zadillo
Aug 4, 03:56 PM
You know, considering that Sony has been able to cram a DL drive in something as tiny as the TX series (not to mention the SZ series), I'm not sure why Apple couldn't do something similar with the 15" MBP.
hehe299792458
Apr 10, 07:00 AM
This is the longest thread I've seen on this forum that's arguing over a matter of style... I'm sad
vendettabass
Aug 11, 09:39 AM
mac mini for 64 bit :p :D
BornAgainMac
Aug 4, 05:02 AM
The reason. To do what they did with the mini drives on the iPod. Buy up as much inventory that Intel has the offer. Make Dell and all the rest wait until production of the chips can keep up with demand. Dell and the others will still ship a ton of products but with the slower Celerons and the equiv AMD.
I am curious of anyone does the volume of Core Duo products as Apple anyways.
I am curious of anyone does the volume of Core Duo products as Apple anyways.
2ndPath
Aug 7, 05:54 PM
Why is everyone complaining about the graphics card? The baseline option should not be an expensive card as not everyone needs that. And opposed to all other current macs, it can be upgraded when the machine is bought or even down the road. A better base line card would just mean an even higher base line price.
The Mac Pro looks like a really nice work station now in terms of processing power and, compared to the G5, also in terms of expandability of drives. It would be nice to have something with the processing power and pricing like the iMac and some expandability. However I guess Apple expects most people, who buy Mac Pros now, would buy these machines instead and this would mean much less profit for Apple. So it's unlikely to happen.
The Mac Pro looks like a really nice work station now in terms of processing power and, compared to the G5, also in terms of expandability of drives. It would be nice to have something with the processing power and pricing like the iMac and some expandability. However I guess Apple expects most people, who buy Mac Pros now, would buy these machines instead and this would mean much less profit for Apple. So it's unlikely to happen.
Sedrick
Mar 30, 11:47 AM
So let me understand this. You pay to buy your music, you pay to store it 'in the cloud' and you pay data charges (with ever decreasing unlimited data plans) to listen to it.
This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Eidorian
Jul 21, 02:03 PM
Sheesh. This is a 180 from waiting for G5 updates.They're much more predictable with Intel's roadmap.
Machead III
Sep 16, 09:44 AM
If they don't update the MacBooks by the 25th, they've got to drop the price.
navguy
Dec 12, 05:23 PM
The Bluetooth only works when the iPhone is in the cradle and the ignition is turned on. When you turn off the ignition, the Bluetooth turns off. If you have the iPhone in your pocket the Car Kit Bluetooth will not connect.
I guess I see the connection to the ignition, but only activating when there is a phone in cradle seems like a strange use of bluetooth ... why not use hardwire connection to eliminate any potential for interference ... or open up and allow use as speaker phone in car regardless of phone in cradle
I don't believe Magellan uses bluetooth in this way
I guess I see the connection to the ignition, but only activating when there is a phone in cradle seems like a strange use of bluetooth ... why not use hardwire connection to eliminate any potential for interference ... or open up and allow use as speaker phone in car regardless of phone in cradle
I don't believe Magellan uses bluetooth in this way
WildCowboy
Aug 3, 10:30 PM
Not a whole lot of new info, but any indication that the move to Merom will be a rapid one is certainly welcomed...
Umbongo
Apr 23, 07:41 AM
How does having the PSU on the bottom keep it cool?...
Hot air rises, so the heat generated by the PSU will just rise and fill up the case.
Unless I'm missing something or the laws of physics have changed in recent years?
Second post explains it: http://forums.legitreviews.com/about11789.html
Hot air rises, so the heat generated by the PSU will just rise and fill up the case.
Unless I'm missing something or the laws of physics have changed in recent years?
Second post explains it: http://forums.legitreviews.com/about11789.html
aqwhiteh
Nov 26, 09:45 AM
It is inevitable that Mac OS will eventually be more frequently targetted, however I have 'faith' the it is more secure than windows. And if and when the great Mac Virus Outbreak occurs, I'll install AV software, until then. NO.
Security is vaguely to mildly inconvenient, and worth it in my opinion. The only thing I have faith in is that no OS is truly secure if it has a network connection... that, and the willingness and ability of smart people around the world to steal in new and creative ways.
I run Norton 11.1.1 on my mac pro, I barely notice the performance hit with this version, unlike previous ones. Only catch is they don't have full 64-bit support (symantec connect site states it is 'coming soon'). But it does protect against phishing sites (not that I need that necessarily).
One of the most common ways to get malware installed these days is by Rogue AV (popups claim you are 'infected' and tell you to download a free AV app you never heard of to remove it... and bingo you've installed malware). Sophos is not one of these. Point is OS X won't protect users from themselves.
Security is vaguely to mildly inconvenient, and worth it in my opinion. The only thing I have faith in is that no OS is truly secure if it has a network connection... that, and the willingness and ability of smart people around the world to steal in new and creative ways.
I run Norton 11.1.1 on my mac pro, I barely notice the performance hit with this version, unlike previous ones. Only catch is they don't have full 64-bit support (symantec connect site states it is 'coming soon'). But it does protect against phishing sites (not that I need that necessarily).
One of the most common ways to get malware installed these days is by Rogue AV (popups claim you are 'infected' and tell you to download a free AV app you never heard of to remove it... and bingo you've installed malware). Sophos is not one of these. Point is OS X won't protect users from themselves.
Shadow
Jul 21, 05:07 PM
Just a hint, do NOT believe any of the rubbish from Mac OS Rumors. It is the World's worst Apple source.
Agreed 100%. <Comic Book Guy voice>Worst. Website. Ever.</CBG voice>
Agreed 100%. <Comic Book Guy voice>Worst. Website. Ever.</CBG voice>
snberk103
May 6, 01:28 PM
I said some stuff, and....No, that's not how it works -- YOU are supposed to do that to support your argument, not me :-).... Cheers!
...
Okay. 'No one' was a hyperbole.
Gosh, I can't get anything past you guys today! ;)
Yeah, I'm having a tough day too ... :)
...
Okay. 'No one' was a hyperbole.
Gosh, I can't get anything past you guys today! ;)
Yeah, I'm having a tough day too ... :)
ariza910
Aug 11, 12:43 PM
Yes, actualy all the worlds puppies will die
Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
Teddy's
Sep 11, 09:30 AM
And Radiohead.
I wonder about these two -- three before Dave Matthews Band came aboard -- everytime there's a major music announcement.
If they add the "album only" feature to *All* Radiohead's songs, more bands will follow. Mostly for marketing reasons. There are lots of those crappy "Radiohead wannabes - ohhhhhh our songs should not be outside their album":mad:
Now, I can't wait for tomorrow's event!
I wonder about these two -- three before Dave Matthews Band came aboard -- everytime there's a major music announcement.
If they add the "album only" feature to *All* Radiohead's songs, more bands will follow. Mostly for marketing reasons. There are lots of those crappy "Radiohead wannabes - ohhhhhh our songs should not be outside their album":mad:
Now, I can't wait for tomorrow's event!
Cinch
Jul 30, 10:26 AM
Yeah tell me about it.
How much does it take to break a Verizon contract again...?
For me it is $175 which is no big deal if you are a early adopter of tech. A more likely scenario that a lot of people here ellude to is for Cingular, T-mobile, Verizon etc. to adopt the phone, in which case we'll only have to pay for the phone. Of course expect premium price, which for a stock holder is not a bad scenario!
Cinch
How much does it take to break a Verizon contract again...?
For me it is $175 which is no big deal if you are a early adopter of tech. A more likely scenario that a lot of people here ellude to is for Cingular, T-mobile, Verizon etc. to adopt the phone, in which case we'll only have to pay for the phone. Of course expect premium price, which for a stock holder is not a bad scenario!
Cinch