freeny
Aug 7, 04:25 PM
I really dont give a cr@p who made what first or who stole this or that. All I care is that it works....
tortoise
Aug 7, 09:14 PM
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
Ahem, a modern relational database system can do everything a file system can. In fact, they are both databases, but optimized for different tasks and slightly different semantics. The same behaviors can be achieved with both; it is a matter of design bias, not capability. File systems like ZFS actually converge on normal MVCC database behavior, which durably journals all writes but with more flexibility with respect to atomicity and version cleanup than a file system. File system semantics, even versioning ones, are more primitive and less capable than database ones, but with substantially increased performance over what would be possible from an MVCC database for the same task.
Same theory, different optimizations. The balancing act has always been between the power fully ACID-compliant MVCC semantics and the basic speed of simple file system semantics. Apple and Sun are burning some excess performance capacity to deliver features that are closer to the database ideal.
Ahem, a modern relational database system can do everything a file system can. In fact, they are both databases, but optimized for different tasks and slightly different semantics. The same behaviors can be achieved with both; it is a matter of design bias, not capability. File systems like ZFS actually converge on normal MVCC database behavior, which durably journals all writes but with more flexibility with respect to atomicity and version cleanup than a file system. File system semantics, even versioning ones, are more primitive and less capable than database ones, but with substantially increased performance over what would be possible from an MVCC database for the same task.
Same theory, different optimizations. The balancing act has always been between the power fully ACID-compliant MVCC semantics and the basic speed of simple file system semantics. Apple and Sun are burning some excess performance capacity to deliver features that are closer to the database ideal.
MacsRgr8
Aug 5, 06:06 PM
I think the Merom will be introduced:
Thus a MacBook Pro wil probably be announced, and made available right away, or otherwise very soon.
The Conroe and Woodcrest will probably take longer.
So, the Mac Pro and Xserve Pro (uuuuggghhh!!!... must. remain. Xserve) will be announced, but shipping in about 6 weeks.
Thus a MacBook Pro wil probably be announced, and made available right away, or otherwise very soon.
The Conroe and Woodcrest will probably take longer.
So, the Mac Pro and Xserve Pro (uuuuggghhh!!!... must. remain. Xserve) will be announced, but shipping in about 6 weeks.
roadbloc
Apr 27, 10:58 AM
Damn. some of you guys are *really* reaching here.
It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 06:12 PM
What?!
No white phone?
Can you verify bibbz?
No white phone?
Can you verify bibbz?
slackpacker
Apr 12, 09:25 AM
Naw, memory too. There's probably a lot I left out, it was just a quick list off the top of my head.
64bit will just expand memory access it does not have anything to do with being multiprocessor aware.
64bit will just expand memory access it does not have anything to do with being multiprocessor aware.
Cameront9
Aug 7, 05:02 PM
Like the whole 3ghz thing?
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
In this Case, steve is only dependent on his own company to make it come true.
And did anyone else laugh today when they showed the top of the line Mac Pro--at 3Ghz?
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
In this Case, steve is only dependent on his own company to make it come true.
And did anyone else laugh today when they showed the top of the line Mac Pro--at 3Ghz?
skunk
Apr 27, 01:29 PM
Who said I supported Bush? He's not conservative enough for me.Hell, the Pope's not conservative enough for you.
I know a lot about alcoholism and codependence because my mother is a nurse who specialized in treating alcoholics and other drug addicts and in counseling them. You don't help an alcoholic by protecting him from the consequences of his actions. The protection can help him make even bigger mistakes. I've seen that happen in many families I know of that include alcoholics. I also know about entitled welfare recipients who abuse social programs by demanding too much from social programs, by getting it, and by defrauding them. I saw the entitlement firsthand when a relative of mine was a landlord who rented houses to welfare recipients. Welfare recipients ruined a house, my relative kept the security deposit, and then the family got the Department of Social Services to put them into a house for twice the rent my relative charged. But the family still had the nerve to complain that my relative had overcharged it.Ah, how I've missed the heartwarming, anecdotal and utterly irrelevant evidence you bring to a topic.
I know a lot about alcoholism and codependence because my mother is a nurse who specialized in treating alcoholics and other drug addicts and in counseling them. You don't help an alcoholic by protecting him from the consequences of his actions. The protection can help him make even bigger mistakes. I've seen that happen in many families I know of that include alcoholics. I also know about entitled welfare recipients who abuse social programs by demanding too much from social programs, by getting it, and by defrauding them. I saw the entitlement firsthand when a relative of mine was a landlord who rented houses to welfare recipients. Welfare recipients ruined a house, my relative kept the security deposit, and then the family got the Department of Social Services to put them into a house for twice the rent my relative charged. But the family still had the nerve to complain that my relative had overcharged it.Ah, how I've missed the heartwarming, anecdotal and utterly irrelevant evidence you bring to a topic.
danielpicasso
Mar 26, 01:33 PM
Some of the comments on this board are inane.
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
thanks for keeping the inmates sane...... why would Apple let their OS be anything but perfect
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
thanks for keeping the inmates sane...... why would Apple let their OS be anything but perfect
skunk
Aug 6, 01:39 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.comFascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.comFascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
turtlebud
Aug 7, 11:47 PM
does anyone see a potential for a security breach with the ichat feature that lets you take over someone's desktop? (the purpose is of course to collaborate or to help them fix a problem)
blakbyrd
Aug 5, 04:07 PM
Reposting my prediction from another thread:
2012 Honda Civic Coupe Front
2012 Honda Civic LX sedan
2012 Honda Civic hybrid
2012 Honda Civic EX-L coupe
2012 civic si interior.
2012 honda civic si coupe
As well, the 2012 Civic#39;s
ClimbingTheLog
Jul 20, 12:56 PM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.
SactoGuy18
Mar 31, 08:37 PM
I think one thing Google may require--possibly starting right now--is that all cellphone and tablet manufacturers that use Android MUST include an option for what amounts to a "pure" Android interface "experience," which means the ability to disable Motorola's Motoblur and HTC's HTC Sense interface changes in favor of the true Android interface.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of the iPhone is the fact because you only have ONE interface type, it becomes very easy to do minor version updates to the cellphone OS to add features and/or fix bugs. Google reining in Android will mean that future Android cellphones and tablet computers will also gain the ability to do minor version updates easily.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of the iPhone is the fact because you only have ONE interface type, it becomes very easy to do minor version updates to the cellphone OS to add features and/or fix bugs. Google reining in Android will mean that future Android cellphones and tablet computers will also gain the ability to do minor version updates easily.
happyduck42
Apr 19, 02:12 PM
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
Wikipedia is wrong then; it was announced in Feb after the iPhone in January 2007.
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
Wikipedia is wrong then; it was announced in Feb after the iPhone in January 2007.
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
tazinlwfl
Apr 25, 02:25 PM
I think most people are missing this key bit of info - Location Services was turned off and the database was purged, and it still made a new database with new data...
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
SuperMatt
Mar 31, 02:26 PM
The biggest advantage always given for Android over iOS is that it's "open source." Well, clearly that's not the case anymore. So, I can't think of any other reason to use Android over iOS, or even Windows 7. It looks like junk, and it's just a cheap ripoff of iOS.
Full of Win
Mar 31, 07:19 PM
Exactly. What we need are more objective, balanced and rational sounding opinions like yours.
What he said was spot on. Gruber is the archetypical Apple sycophant, second only to Andy Ifatso from MacBreak Weekly.
What he said was spot on. Gruber is the archetypical Apple sycophant, second only to Andy Ifatso from MacBreak Weekly.
Hellhammer
Dec 9, 10:08 AM
*snip*
Even though I sometimes get bored of your constant dissing of GT5, those are my thoughts as well. There are way too many things and all have been done pretty mediocrely.
For example the karting, there are like 6 races of that. As they added it to the game, why couldn't they just put a decent amount of those races into the game then? Seems like a waste of money and time to add such things that are barely used.
I agree 100% that there are way too many cars. Well, maybe not too many cars but too many crappy and totally useless cars. I wouldn't mind if there was 1000 great sports cars but since most of them seem to be some regular cars that start to cough when you go +100km/h, it's pretty ridiculous. Nobody wants to drive cars like that, people want speed!
Some cars from GT4 also look fairly bad (blurry texts, license plates and stuff like that) which is a shame. 6 years of waiting and they end up transferring cars from an old game to a new one.
Menus are what I expected from a Japanese game, horrible.
It's not a bad game but it could have been a lot better
Even though I sometimes get bored of your constant dissing of GT5, those are my thoughts as well. There are way too many things and all have been done pretty mediocrely.
For example the karting, there are like 6 races of that. As they added it to the game, why couldn't they just put a decent amount of those races into the game then? Seems like a waste of money and time to add such things that are barely used.
I agree 100% that there are way too many cars. Well, maybe not too many cars but too many crappy and totally useless cars. I wouldn't mind if there was 1000 great sports cars but since most of them seem to be some regular cars that start to cough when you go +100km/h, it's pretty ridiculous. Nobody wants to drive cars like that, people want speed!
Some cars from GT4 also look fairly bad (blurry texts, license plates and stuff like that) which is a shame. 6 years of waiting and they end up transferring cars from an old game to a new one.
Menus are what I expected from a Japanese game, horrible.
It's not a bad game but it could have been a lot better
kdarling
Apr 19, 02:43 PM
That sort of misstates the test for likelihood of confusion. A consumer might, for example, believe that Apple licenses or otherwise blesses the Samsung products. That's probably good enough.
Thank you for the correction!
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007.
"FUD" is a big strong, don't you think? But you are correct; the F700 was shown off a couple of weeks later.
As I've said many times, 2006 was the time that everyone of us in the business (not casual consumers) knew that touchscreen phones were coming. Many companies were working on them; some quicker than others. They had no need to copy from each other; there's only a few major ways to do an all-touch phone without getting weird.
That's why Jobs felt he had to show off the iPhone before the other trade shows came along, long before it was ready for sale. He did not want to be seen as second in line. (It had nothing to do with the FCC... that's a story for the naive.)
Thank you for the correction!
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007.
"FUD" is a big strong, don't you think? But you are correct; the F700 was shown off a couple of weeks later.
As I've said many times, 2006 was the time that everyone of us in the business (not casual consumers) knew that touchscreen phones were coming. Many companies were working on them; some quicker than others. They had no need to copy from each other; there's only a few major ways to do an all-touch phone without getting weird.
That's why Jobs felt he had to show off the iPhone before the other trade shows came along, long before it was ready for sale. He did not want to be seen as second in line. (It had nothing to do with the FCC... that's a story for the naive.)
Super Dave
Aug 7, 04:33 PM
I dont think the "Top Secret" stuff is really top secret. I think Apple needs some more time to develope a few things before releasing them out into the public. No reason to release buggy apps.
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
They certainly aren't done, but they're announcing it within the same length time frame as they did with Tiger if I recall.
I actually believed him on the "Top Secret" stuff. Every vista build changes, so it's good to not let too much out of the bag until Vista is either interface frozen or released.
David :cool:
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
They certainly aren't done, but they're announcing it within the same length time frame as they did with Tiger if I recall.
I actually believed him on the "Top Secret" stuff. Every vista build changes, so it's good to not let too much out of the bag until Vista is either interface frozen or released.
David :cool:
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 10, 10:25 AM
*sexy pics*
Did you take those yourself? I've only played with photo mode a little and i have trouble keeping my car in focus unless i use a huge f-stop. If i shorted the DoF it always ends up focusing on my rear bumper or something stupid.
I probably just need to use it more, but i just get impatient and start another race.
Did you take those yourself? I've only played with photo mode a little and i have trouble keeping my car in focus unless i use a huge f-stop. If i shorted the DoF it always ends up focusing on my rear bumper or something stupid.
I probably just need to use it more, but i just get impatient and start another race.
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:08 PM
The Xoom is a great tablet. I'm willing to bet that the majority of you who have discredited it haven't even used it. And it DOES have 3.0 Honeycomb, which IS made for tablets. The iPad 2 is still a better tablet, but is it not possible some of the iPad 2's sales have come from just the Apple name? People will buy an Apple product even if it didn't have a feature.
people will buy a xoom just because its not made by apple.
people will buy a xoom just because its not made by apple.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق