KPOM
Apr 21, 02:06 PM
Which would be better for video editing -- the current MBA or the upcoming Sandy Bridge MBA? (just family videos, nothing hardcore)
Likely the Sandy Bridge. Editing uses CPU power.
Consider that the Sandy Bridge chip has several advantages over the Core 2 Duo:
%IMG_DESC_2%
%IMG_DESC_3%
%IMG_DESC_4%
more...
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
more...
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
more...
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
more...
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
more...
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
more...
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
more...
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Likely the Sandy Bridge. Editing uses CPU power.
Consider that the Sandy Bridge chip has several advantages over the Core 2 Duo:
GeorgeN111
Jan 31, 02:51 PM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2009/09/applecare.jpg
Applecare for my 27" iMac. Have had this machine for around 5 months and all of a sudden i have noticed a Black Smudge on the lower right side of the screen. I have seen a lot worse on the iMac forum however it is something which constantly annoys me and something i cannot live with. They will be calling me either tonight or tomorrow which is awesome.
Applecare for my 27" iMac. Have had this machine for around 5 months and all of a sudden i have noticed a Black Smudge on the lower right side of the screen. I have seen a lot worse on the iMac forum however it is something which constantly annoys me and something i cannot live with. They will be calling me either tonight or tomorrow which is awesome.
rayz
Aug 1, 10:54 AM
I only clarified because it didn't seem like you got it. If you did, then my apologies.
No problem
As for the time it took Apple to create a stable version I disagree...the first desktop version that was available came out in March 2001. I would say that Jaguar was the first completely stable version, which came out in August 2002. Even if you disagree my PowerBook has been completely stable since I got it (it shipped with 10.2.7) in September 2003. Just over two years. My XP boxes have been far less stable.
Well, I actually didn't have a problem with any version of XP, even before I had installed XP2. The first releases of OSX were pretty hellish for me. Panther was fine; then I installed Tiger and I was back in beta land, which is when I decided to move the business-related stuff back to XP and just do the fun stuff on OSX. Fortunately Apple released a fix a few weeks after they released Tiger.
Also, Apple charges because they offer new things to the operating system, not just stability fixes. OS X updates are also cheaper.
Well, I don't think they've really done that much. They've mashed a few extra look and feels into the UI, added dashboard (and I'm not even sure they invented that), Automator (wich I really should try out). Apart from that, the OS is pretty much the same as it was when it was released (though a lot more stable obviously).
It's an excellent piece of work, but it certainly should be cheaper because when you get right down to it, they didn't actually have to write it from scratch.
Timepass,
It's still called the Blue Screen of Death. If OS X had one, it'd be called the same thing. The point is that it's Blue, not that it's caused by .dll errors or incorrect memory addressing.
Er ... OSX does have one, but it appear to be black (http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/ask-apple-matters-os-x-crashes-afterall/) ....
No problem
As for the time it took Apple to create a stable version I disagree...the first desktop version that was available came out in March 2001. I would say that Jaguar was the first completely stable version, which came out in August 2002. Even if you disagree my PowerBook has been completely stable since I got it (it shipped with 10.2.7) in September 2003. Just over two years. My XP boxes have been far less stable.
Well, I actually didn't have a problem with any version of XP, even before I had installed XP2. The first releases of OSX were pretty hellish for me. Panther was fine; then I installed Tiger and I was back in beta land, which is when I decided to move the business-related stuff back to XP and just do the fun stuff on OSX. Fortunately Apple released a fix a few weeks after they released Tiger.
Also, Apple charges because they offer new things to the operating system, not just stability fixes. OS X updates are also cheaper.
Well, I don't think they've really done that much. They've mashed a few extra look and feels into the UI, added dashboard (and I'm not even sure they invented that), Automator (wich I really should try out). Apart from that, the OS is pretty much the same as it was when it was released (though a lot more stable obviously).
It's an excellent piece of work, but it certainly should be cheaper because when you get right down to it, they didn't actually have to write it from scratch.
Timepass,
It's still called the Blue Screen of Death. If OS X had one, it'd be called the same thing. The point is that it's Blue, not that it's caused by .dll errors or incorrect memory addressing.
Er ... OSX does have one, but it appear to be black (http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/ask-apple-matters-os-x-crashes-afterall/) ....
Abstract
Mar 10, 04:11 PM
OH NOES!! THEY JUST PICKED A FIGHT WITH A WARLOCK!!! :eek:
more...
bdkennedy1
Mar 31, 01:56 PM
If you want functionality, then go use Windows. Most Mac users are designers and the look of something is just as important as functionality. Steve Jobs may love the look of his day planner, that doesn't mean I have to be stuck with it.
Personally? I find it humorous that so many people on here refuse to use the app, or have big issues with it, all because of the faux leather look to the top bar, or other attempts to make the app look like its physical counterpart. If the app has the FUNCTIONALITY you need, that's what makes it good! I've come to expect that Apple will regularly revise the LOOK of these applications. Even if they had a look that 99.9% of users agreed was "perfect"? They'd revise it with the next major release of the app or OS, simply because they know people don't feel like they really "got enough for their money" if it doesn't look different at a quick glance....
The way it defaults to entering new appointments with that "unnamed appointment" heading drives me nuts too. Accidental taps on the iPhone or iPad can lead to those things being added to your schedule, and if you don't notice it until later? You're left wondering if it's supposed be a real appointment for something, or if it was just a screw-up. They should make it so if you don't actually fill something in, it cancels adding it.
Another feature I'd like to see? It needs a way to easily open up a list of your contacts from the Address Book inside a pane in iCal itself, and drag one over to the calendar to add an appointment with their address inserted as the "location", and name plus maybe phone number(s) in the title. Like many people, I use iCal to track appointments I have with clients, so this info usually needs to go into them.
I saw where someone wrote a fancy Applescript to accomplish this, but IMHO, that's still a "hack" for functionality Apple could/should include!
Personally? I find it humorous that so many people on here refuse to use the app, or have big issues with it, all because of the faux leather look to the top bar, or other attempts to make the app look like its physical counterpart. If the app has the FUNCTIONALITY you need, that's what makes it good! I've come to expect that Apple will regularly revise the LOOK of these applications. Even if they had a look that 99.9% of users agreed was "perfect"? They'd revise it with the next major release of the app or OS, simply because they know people don't feel like they really "got enough for their money" if it doesn't look different at a quick glance....
The way it defaults to entering new appointments with that "unnamed appointment" heading drives me nuts too. Accidental taps on the iPhone or iPad can lead to those things being added to your schedule, and if you don't notice it until later? You're left wondering if it's supposed be a real appointment for something, or if it was just a screw-up. They should make it so if you don't actually fill something in, it cancels adding it.
Another feature I'd like to see? It needs a way to easily open up a list of your contacts from the Address Book inside a pane in iCal itself, and drag one over to the calendar to add an appointment with their address inserted as the "location", and name plus maybe phone number(s) in the title. Like many people, I use iCal to track appointments I have with clients, so this info usually needs to go into them.
I saw where someone wrote a fancy Applescript to accomplish this, but IMHO, that's still a "hack" for functionality Apple could/should include!
leekohler
Apr 27, 12:15 PM
It's called facts, not sure if you've ever come across this word before. I didn't particularly like what I saw, and milking the seizure was the right thing to do in order for these scumbags to go away. But it's just an observation that I and many have so why not say it?
Facts? You have no proof that she was faking a seizure- none whatsoever. If you want to talk facts, then speak about what you actually know. You have NO WAY to prove she was faking. What you're engaging in is speculation.
Facts? You have no proof that she was faking a seizure- none whatsoever. If you want to talk facts, then speak about what you actually know. You have NO WAY to prove she was faking. What you're engaging in is speculation.
more...
vincenz
Apr 28, 04:57 PM
Imagine if someone at Foxconn accidentally hit the number next to the one he was supposed to hit ;)
rovex
Apr 27, 02:33 PM
Think what you want, but it was still a crappy thing to assume.
Nope, the thing you haven't understood is that I thought it was a Clever idea, as right after, the attackers left. Nothing "crappy" about acknowledging something which saved her from further sufferance. Of course, you interpreted my post as being insincere and cold, but it was merely an observation and never did I have the intention to be hurtful.
Nope, the thing you haven't understood is that I thought it was a Clever idea, as right after, the attackers left. Nothing "crappy" about acknowledging something which saved her from further sufferance. Of course, you interpreted my post as being insincere and cold, but it was merely an observation and never did I have the intention to be hurtful.
more...
parapup
Apr 26, 12:15 PM
Amazon is poised to pwn both Apple and Google on that one.
If MobileMe is any indication, Apple just doesn't get cloud - if they plan on charging for it, Amazon is happy to take their business - they'll sell you plain mp3s for the boot!
Android wins (http://www.androidcentral.com/nielsen-android-americas-most-wanted-platform) in any case!
If MobileMe is any indication, Apple just doesn't get cloud - if they plan on charging for it, Amazon is happy to take their business - they'll sell you plain mp3s for the boot!
Android wins (http://www.androidcentral.com/nielsen-android-americas-most-wanted-platform) in any case!
Kajover
May 3, 08:13 AM
Is it now possible to use the 21,5" screen as an external display?
Is the difference between hd 6750m and 6770m a noticeable one?
Is the difference between hd 6750m and 6770m a noticeable one?
more...
GryphonKeeper
Jul 26, 11:56 AM
If you look at the illustrations, this is far larger than an iPod screen, especially for two handed control as depicted. Not that the tech can't be used for an iPod, but my guess this is going to be a tablet-like device positioned somewhere between the iPod and iMac. Steve Jobs and Apple have stated before that the Intel deal lets them envision a whole range of products not out there, especially fast chips that use less power. Also, macsimimumnews has revealed a trademark filing for a "doPod" that seems to suggest an iPod on steroids.
I believe this is a companion device that's not quite a full mac, but more functionality than an iPod, and be sized somewhere in between. At home, it could connect to your network and control your music through AirPort Express, or movies on FrontRow through your TV. Or you can take it with you and watch movies, check email, or read books (tying in the Engadget rumor on books). To keep the price point reasonable, I imagine it will be mostly a "player" rather than running full-fledged apps, but something like e-mail could be possible with the touch screen.
I'm guessing that the touchless interface could be a major part of Leopard and point to a new breed of hardware and form factors that Steve J and Apple have been hinting at.
I believe this is a companion device that's not quite a full mac, but more functionality than an iPod, and be sized somewhere in between. At home, it could connect to your network and control your music through AirPort Express, or movies on FrontRow through your TV. Or you can take it with you and watch movies, check email, or read books (tying in the Engadget rumor on books). To keep the price point reasonable, I imagine it will be mostly a "player" rather than running full-fledged apps, but something like e-mail could be possible with the touch screen.
I'm guessing that the touchless interface could be a major part of Leopard and point to a new breed of hardware and form factors that Steve J and Apple have been hinting at.
Keleko
Apr 6, 06:03 PM
The Cherokee Memorial Park in Hopkinsville, KY, is where Chief Whitepath and Fly Smith, a clan leader, are buried. This site was one of the ration stops along the Trail of Tears.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/5595980609_3086a27a2c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5595980609/in/photostream/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/5595980609_3086a27a2c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5595980609/in/photostream/)
more...
MattyMac
Jul 24, 06:04 PM
Better list my current bluetooth mouse on ebay now:D
roosta
Apr 15, 05:54 PM
the "view" buttons in finder changed back to the old style.
281496
yay!
281496
yay!
more...
Apple OC
May 1, 11:53 PM
To US its a big deal. It's a blow to the Al-Qaeda that doesn't exist anymore. The current one will still function just as it has for nearly a decade in its cell based way. If anything this will just piss off extremists. Don't think for a second some type of retaliation (most likely attacks in the Middle East) won't come about from this.
are you suggesting we give him a pass? :rolleyes:
are you suggesting we give him a pass? :rolleyes:
840quadra
Dec 1, 04:44 PM
lol system 7? Why?? No one runs Windows 95 for fun...
Exactly!
It is not Windows 95, and that is for me to worry about.
Exactly!
It is not Windows 95, and that is for me to worry about.
more...
Abstract
Dec 30, 01:36 PM
Creative positioning + bed with a good bit of "give", e.g. Memory Foam = enjoyment without that "crushing" feeling.
Nothing should have to remember such an experience. Not even a mattress.
Nothing should have to remember such an experience. Not even a mattress.
SilianRail
Apr 13, 02:41 PM
How dumb do people have to be to think that Apple is going to enter a mature market for a commodity?
ipodrocker
Oct 24, 08:02 AM
wow! im so happy apple does it again fresh updates and now the superdrive supports DL burning!! and speed is up to 6x not bad, 1gb ram as standard is good too ** and FW 800
SandboxGeneral
Apr 14, 12:24 PM
Downloading mine for the iPhone 3GS...
840quadra
Jul 10, 02:54 PM
I think I need to start wearing glasses!
I could have sworn that the title was in regards to a Macrumors Page 3 unveiling.
I will now pay closer attention!
I could have sworn that the title was in regards to a Macrumors Page 3 unveiling.
I will now pay closer attention!
southernpaws
Apr 22, 02:58 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
This will likely offend the diehard apple fanboys and the people who want to steve jobs to have their kid. But it needs to be said because it will add to the discussion. Read on at your on discretion:
Apple inc. Idea of technology is simple if product A is X weight and Y thin. Any upgrade to product A that will and can result in the weight being greater then X then the upgrade is not a worthwhile addition to the phone.
I like apple but they are to damn cautious of a company. Google is know for its innovations, but more ever it does things that most people would not think of many of these Ideas fail others become standard. Apple needs to be more on the front lines and take risk. Nothing wrong with a few bad products.
Is it a bad thing that apple doesn't want to increase the size of the iPhone? There are people who want/accept huge phones but the fact remains that the motorola razr is historically one of the most successful phones and people criticized the iPhone on its realease for it's size.
The majority of the market wants smaller phones. Apple should go after that
Also. Re: innovation. Ever hear of. Um. The iPhone? Or the iPad?
Google isn't known for innovations they're known as a search company that's expanding their reach. Google has never "innovated" with a larger phone. They just make a very good OS...but your comparison is false
This will likely offend the diehard apple fanboys and the people who want to steve jobs to have their kid. But it needs to be said because it will add to the discussion. Read on at your on discretion:
Apple inc. Idea of technology is simple if product A is X weight and Y thin. Any upgrade to product A that will and can result in the weight being greater then X then the upgrade is not a worthwhile addition to the phone.
I like apple but they are to damn cautious of a company. Google is know for its innovations, but more ever it does things that most people would not think of many of these Ideas fail others become standard. Apple needs to be more on the front lines and take risk. Nothing wrong with a few bad products.
Is it a bad thing that apple doesn't want to increase the size of the iPhone? There are people who want/accept huge phones but the fact remains that the motorola razr is historically one of the most successful phones and people criticized the iPhone on its realease for it's size.
The majority of the market wants smaller phones. Apple should go after that
Also. Re: innovation. Ever hear of. Um. The iPhone? Or the iPad?
Google isn't known for innovations they're known as a search company that's expanding their reach. Google has never "innovated" with a larger phone. They just make a very good OS...but your comparison is false
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
s.meezy
Apr 26, 02:43 AM
ZOMG u ppl will believe anything! N94 and phone number are TAPED ONTO the back of the phone... there's a lot going on here, lulz.
#1: Fake Carrier via Cydia
#2: Microsoft Paint
#3: Labeling machine
To everyone in this thread saying Android is garbage, to you, you're right. Plz, there's a difference between fact and opinion...
#1: Fake Carrier via Cydia
#2: Microsoft Paint
#3: Labeling machine
To everyone in this thread saying Android is garbage, to you, you're right. Plz, there's a difference between fact and opinion...
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق