jeremy.king
Apr 12, 01:25 PM
Still can't assign tasks to others in Outlook...bummer
ECUpirate44
Apr 14, 01:16 PM
Page 2?
BNZ1
Jan 7, 12:11 PM
Does anyone know if the sync will add new contacts to your phone/fb or if it just syncs data for the existing phone contacts?
freeny
Aug 14, 01:33 PM
...if you're selling soap.
You are wrong.
Proven by Apples rising market share.;)
You cant keep saying that these ads are hurting apple if they keep selling more and more computers.
It makes no sense.:confused:
I dont find the Apple guy smug at all. I find him very confident and sure of himself.
You are wrong.
Proven by Apples rising market share.;)
You cant keep saying that these ads are hurting apple if they keep selling more and more computers.
It makes no sense.:confused:
I dont find the Apple guy smug at all. I find him very confident and sure of himself.
more...
BRLawyer
Sep 3, 08:58 AM
I agree Finder is slower than a snail. Many Mac fans live in denial about the s-l--o--w f----i-----n-------d--------e----r but it is a joke compared to XP. I love OS X and it would be easy to impress others with it's elegance if it weren't for the S-L--O---W F----I-----N------D-------E--------R.
Great! The pop-up menu on my documents folder in the dock just opened. Bye Bye.
Sorry, you don't use XP and OS X, then...XP is much slower and a simple piece of crap in regards to multitasking and multithreading...OS X is MUCH faster at that, and can deal with multiple windows, eye candy and different tasks WAAAAAAAAAY better than XP...and yes, I use both (XP for work, OS X at home).
Great! The pop-up menu on my documents folder in the dock just opened. Bye Bye.
Sorry, you don't use XP and OS X, then...XP is much slower and a simple piece of crap in regards to multitasking and multithreading...OS X is MUCH faster at that, and can deal with multiple windows, eye candy and different tasks WAAAAAAAAAY better than XP...and yes, I use both (XP for work, OS X at home).
cmgriffi102
Mar 12, 11:18 AM
Any word on store inventory around the area? Southlake said they wouldn't get any until monday....
more...
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 5, 12:56 PM
He the man!
nmrrjw66
Mar 14, 02:11 PM
Satan appears as an angel of light and he's got two posters hear on this thread at least, but not the other poster.
What is this nonsensical rambling about?
What is this nonsensical rambling about?
more...
Rt&Dzine
May 2, 08:25 PM
The problem is, is that your government is saying things, then going back on it. Nothing is making much sense.
Exactly what have they said that they've taken back?
Exactly what have they said that they've taken back?
Dreadnought
May 28, 05:14 AM
Good Job Redeye, just installed 0,4B and it's great! Keep it up!! BTW, can we link to this thread in our text below?
more...
kupua
Jan 4, 09:41 PM
Wow, all the critical reviews to pay or not to pay, pre installed or dl on the fly. As I see it, both have draw backs as mentioned, but my general pref, is that it should dl at least your surrounding area. So Garmin (39.99), Tom Tom (39.99), Navigon (44.99), Google (free), Motion X ($2.99) etc. for US major apps.
And yet not one sole mentions Map Quest 4 Mobile (free), dl on the fly and I have never had an outage issue.
I do prefer a stand alone gps though. Therefore I don't see spending more for a secondary gps/backup on my mobile.
And for what its worth, currently using a Garmin 265WT, with traffic. I do have some slant toward Garmin as I use a eTrex Vista. On the iPhone I have all the bold apps. I prefer the Map Quest of all the boldfaced ones.
Changing gears on subject, GPS IIF, SV-1 launched end of May 2010 and SV-2 soon, accuracy will only get better!
And yet not one sole mentions Map Quest 4 Mobile (free), dl on the fly and I have never had an outage issue.
I do prefer a stand alone gps though. Therefore I don't see spending more for a secondary gps/backup on my mobile.
And for what its worth, currently using a Garmin 265WT, with traffic. I do have some slant toward Garmin as I use a eTrex Vista. On the iPhone I have all the bold apps. I prefer the Map Quest of all the boldfaced ones.
Changing gears on subject, GPS IIF, SV-1 launched end of May 2010 and SV-2 soon, accuracy will only get better!
cr2sh
Sep 20, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by wilburpan
Please reread my post above. According to the www.cpuscorecard.com website, an iMac 800 MHz machine is comparable in performance to a 1.8Ghz P4 machine. And if you compare the cost of the iMac to a similarly equipped Dell 1.8Ghz P4 machine, the iMac is actually the cheaper of the two.
This was a real eye opener for me.
Fine, lets just assume that a 800mhz imac and a 1.8gigahertz dell are similar in performance, equiptment and cost... this thread is about speed. i realize the differences in the two chips, and i agree largely with apple that frequency isnt everything.. that aside, intel is still kicking motorola's ass (for the time being).
the g4 cannot beat the p4 in performance, so you drag cost ratios in to muddy up the water.. why? the p4 beats the g4. if you want an imac fine, buy it. but dont confuse yourself by saying 'the g4 is just as fast as the p4...' because its not. :)
we're all mac lovers here, and a lot of the pc equivalent software to iapps is total crap! ill agree with you there. you get a LOT of high quality software within the max os. (xp doesnt even include a dvd playing app does it?)
the imac is pretty, its more pleasant to use, and it might bench equivalently.. but like i said, toe to toe... the p4 comes out swining at 2.8gigahertz, the g4 is having a hardtime beating that.
Please reread my post above. According to the www.cpuscorecard.com website, an iMac 800 MHz machine is comparable in performance to a 1.8Ghz P4 machine. And if you compare the cost of the iMac to a similarly equipped Dell 1.8Ghz P4 machine, the iMac is actually the cheaper of the two.
This was a real eye opener for me.
Fine, lets just assume that a 800mhz imac and a 1.8gigahertz dell are similar in performance, equiptment and cost... this thread is about speed. i realize the differences in the two chips, and i agree largely with apple that frequency isnt everything.. that aside, intel is still kicking motorola's ass (for the time being).
the g4 cannot beat the p4 in performance, so you drag cost ratios in to muddy up the water.. why? the p4 beats the g4. if you want an imac fine, buy it. but dont confuse yourself by saying 'the g4 is just as fast as the p4...' because its not. :)
we're all mac lovers here, and a lot of the pc equivalent software to iapps is total crap! ill agree with you there. you get a LOT of high quality software within the max os. (xp doesnt even include a dvd playing app does it?)
the imac is pretty, its more pleasant to use, and it might bench equivalently.. but like i said, toe to toe... the p4 comes out swining at 2.8gigahertz, the g4 is having a hardtime beating that.
more...
MacRumorUser
Mar 25, 06:34 PM
I should have gone for black!!! :(
I got my Aqua Blue (it's more green than blue) and I'm not really keen on the color and if anything it is actually off putting. Oh well.
I got Ridge Racer as a freebie, and I'm glad as I certainly would not have liked to pay for it. Its a big pile of meh!
PilotWings which I was so looking forward to is likewise only ok, it's not as good as pilotwings 64!
SuperStreet Fighter IV is likewise good but not spectacular in any shape or form.
The problem with all of these is that they somehow don't look as sharp or smooth (AA) as they should and it's a little jarring. Somehow the many videos of over the shoulder camera shoots / hands on And the game trailers themselves look better than reality.
In actual fact I'm not bowled over by any of the launch titles and there is so much stuff on the 3DS itself that tells you 'will be available in an update' when you click on it that im not bowled over by it too. I mean come on Nintendo FFS!
Stereoscopy works but by god that sweet spot it requires is really fecking tight! The merest tilt throws it off and as this is a handheld console you will be throwing it off a lot, unless you unnaturally physically force your arms to hold it as rigid as possible, hold your eyes half crossed and fixed tight (which strains), and your neck stiff too. It's clear why Parralax 3D is a long way off being used for commercial TV screens. When it works it works, but it takes a wasps fart to blow it off course.
It is much harder to view 3D content on the 3DS than with 3D glasses on an active 3DTV.
Overall I'm glad this cost me negligible (traded in dsi xl and couple of games) otherwise I'd be mightily pissed off with myself.
Certainly is nt worth the €270 asking price - nor the €45 game prices either.
I got my Aqua Blue (it's more green than blue) and I'm not really keen on the color and if anything it is actually off putting. Oh well.
I got Ridge Racer as a freebie, and I'm glad as I certainly would not have liked to pay for it. Its a big pile of meh!
PilotWings which I was so looking forward to is likewise only ok, it's not as good as pilotwings 64!
SuperStreet Fighter IV is likewise good but not spectacular in any shape or form.
The problem with all of these is that they somehow don't look as sharp or smooth (AA) as they should and it's a little jarring. Somehow the many videos of over the shoulder camera shoots / hands on And the game trailers themselves look better than reality.
In actual fact I'm not bowled over by any of the launch titles and there is so much stuff on the 3DS itself that tells you 'will be available in an update' when you click on it that im not bowled over by it too. I mean come on Nintendo FFS!
Stereoscopy works but by god that sweet spot it requires is really fecking tight! The merest tilt throws it off and as this is a handheld console you will be throwing it off a lot, unless you unnaturally physically force your arms to hold it as rigid as possible, hold your eyes half crossed and fixed tight (which strains), and your neck stiff too. It's clear why Parralax 3D is a long way off being used for commercial TV screens. When it works it works, but it takes a wasps fart to blow it off course.
It is much harder to view 3D content on the 3DS than with 3D glasses on an active 3DTV.
Overall I'm glad this cost me negligible (traded in dsi xl and couple of games) otherwise I'd be mightily pissed off with myself.
Certainly is nt worth the €270 asking price - nor the €45 game prices either.
asxtb
Nov 13, 03:58 AM
????????????- Nice to meet you, I'm a Mac.
?????????? - Hi, I'm a PC.
???iPod????????- Oh, an iPod, what are you listening to?
Eurobeat. - Eurobeat.
Eurobeat? - Eurobeat?
??????iPod. iTunes????????Podcast????????- iPods are great. iTunes is easy to use, and I can look forward to my Podcasts.
??????iPod?????????????????????iLife????????- You know, for a mac, we enjoy things with pictures and movies just as easily as using an iPod. I come with iLife.
??iLife?????????????????????- Oh, iLife? I also come with all kinds of cool software.
????????- Oh, for example?
????????- Calculator.
????????- What else?
??? - Clock.
Nice translations Gammamonk and thanks. But just to nitpick a little...:D
I believe "っオ、iPod、何聞いてる" should be "っオ、iPod、何聴いてる"
You had "What are you hearing?" rather than "What are you listening to?"
:D
?????????? - Hi, I'm a PC.
???iPod????????- Oh, an iPod, what are you listening to?
Eurobeat. - Eurobeat.
Eurobeat? - Eurobeat?
??????iPod. iTunes????????Podcast????????- iPods are great. iTunes is easy to use, and I can look forward to my Podcasts.
??????iPod?????????????????????iLife????????- You know, for a mac, we enjoy things with pictures and movies just as easily as using an iPod. I come with iLife.
??iLife?????????????????????- Oh, iLife? I also come with all kinds of cool software.
????????- Oh, for example?
????????- Calculator.
????????- What else?
??? - Clock.
Nice translations Gammamonk and thanks. But just to nitpick a little...:D
I believe "っオ、iPod、何聞いてる" should be "っオ、iPod、何聴いてる"
You had "What are you hearing?" rather than "What are you listening to?"
:D
more...
citizenzen
Apr 9, 01:38 PM
People are a nation's greatest asset. Planned Parenthood should not be funded by the government, all incoming money goes into one pot and then distributed thus some money goes towards abortions.
What does you first sentence have to do with the second?
Could you please elaborate?
What does you first sentence have to do with the second?
Could you please elaborate?
kingtj
Nov 2, 11:43 AM
Absolutely ... and in all honesty, I think many had good reason to become "Mac haters" too. I was a hard-core PC user back in 1996 or 97, when I decided to take the plunge and try a Mac. (Wondered what all the fuss was about, and wanted to learn something new.) I bought a whole Performa tower system with color printer, etc. I think I put up with that for a whole 3 months before gladly selling it at a loss to someone else! Gag... non-upgradeable video with too little VRAM, worse multitasking under MacOS 8.x than my Windows PC before it had, etc.
It wasn't until I saw OS X on a G4 tower that I gave Apple another chance. And now, today, it's almost all I use at home!
Truthfully though, Apple still needs to do more. The Mac Pro is single-handedly changing the opinions of quite a few PC users who kept arguing that you could simply get more performance out of a Windows PC than a Mac. (It's hard to argue with a quad-core Xeon that can be upgraded to an 8-core version with a CPU swap, and costs less than a comparable Dell system.) And offering a 24" LCD iMac is a good "power user" move too - since it silences the people who whine about all-in-one designs, mainly because they can't get a big display with one.
But IMHO, Apple is a little weak in the video card dept. still. The Mac Mini now costs $100-200 more than it did when it came out, and you still get wimpy, non-upgradeable graphics in it. The Core Duo 2 CPU in one *really* starts to make that look lopsided. Even the iMacs could use something like Radeon X1900XT's in them - because the home market they target includes a lot of teens who want to play games on the computer.
And I'm *really* hoping they start doing more to get software ported to OS X. The ability to boot into Windows shouldn't become an excuse for developers not to make native OS X versions of software. I barely ever boot into XP on my Mac Pro because I like the OS X environment so much better. So the games I tend to play on it are the ones like "Call of Duty 2" I have for OS X.
It's sad though, many people still hate macs. People who have not used one since the old OS 8 / OS 9 days. The 'only one-mouse button / expensive / can't run any programs' image still tarnishes apple. It might take another couple of years for that to wear off from people. At least.
It wasn't until I saw OS X on a G4 tower that I gave Apple another chance. And now, today, it's almost all I use at home!
Truthfully though, Apple still needs to do more. The Mac Pro is single-handedly changing the opinions of quite a few PC users who kept arguing that you could simply get more performance out of a Windows PC than a Mac. (It's hard to argue with a quad-core Xeon that can be upgraded to an 8-core version with a CPU swap, and costs less than a comparable Dell system.) And offering a 24" LCD iMac is a good "power user" move too - since it silences the people who whine about all-in-one designs, mainly because they can't get a big display with one.
But IMHO, Apple is a little weak in the video card dept. still. The Mac Mini now costs $100-200 more than it did when it came out, and you still get wimpy, non-upgradeable graphics in it. The Core Duo 2 CPU in one *really* starts to make that look lopsided. Even the iMacs could use something like Radeon X1900XT's in them - because the home market they target includes a lot of teens who want to play games on the computer.
And I'm *really* hoping they start doing more to get software ported to OS X. The ability to boot into Windows shouldn't become an excuse for developers not to make native OS X versions of software. I barely ever boot into XP on my Mac Pro because I like the OS X environment so much better. So the games I tend to play on it are the ones like "Call of Duty 2" I have for OS X.
It's sad though, many people still hate macs. People who have not used one since the old OS 8 / OS 9 days. The 'only one-mouse button / expensive / can't run any programs' image still tarnishes apple. It might take another couple of years for that to wear off from people. At least.
more...
LethalWolfe
Sep 20, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by P-Worm
Please, enough with the spec matching. :rolleyes: I'll tell you where the missing $1500 went: research and development, OS X (That's a big one...), and the fact that you know that your computer is an all around better machine.
Don't make me use the Geo and Viper car anology again. :eek:
P-Worm
I think I'm gonna kill the next person who uses a stupid car anology...;)
Lethal
Please, enough with the spec matching. :rolleyes: I'll tell you where the missing $1500 went: research and development, OS X (That's a big one...), and the fact that you know that your computer is an all around better machine.
Don't make me use the Geo and Viper car anology again. :eek:
P-Worm
I think I'm gonna kill the next person who uses a stupid car anology...;)
Lethal
Deputy-Dawg
Sep 25, 10:55 PM
Kimberly Clark fought, and lost, the same battle over 'kleenex' becoming a generic noun for facial tissue. Bayer lost it over 'asprin' as the name for sodium acetosalcylate. And there are numerous other examples. All were lost because the owners of the trade name did not vigorously defend their trade name. Apple is doing what it must. Will they suceed? If history is any clue probably not
MikeTheC
Nov 12, 10:29 PM
P.S.: I'm kidding. I don't really need the instructions translated.
mlblacy
Mar 18, 07:05 AM
The one in bold is what I see the most. I've done photography for years and see new people get into the game and worry about the wrong things. Photoshop being one of them. Photoshop shouldn't even come to someones mind.
Learn the camera, learn composition, learn lighting, learn photographic techniques to get what you want such as second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing, etc. Once you can get it done right in camera then you can take it to the next level in photoshop (skin smoothing, removing hair wisps, correcting lens distortion, etc.).
Too many people want to be a pro right out of the gate, they buy photoshop, get a NAPP membership, a fancy computer (that is 99% of the time overkill), raid storage when they've only shot 500 pictures, etc but never bother to learn the fundamentals.
I'm all for learning on Digital, I think it helps someone learn better, but focus on learning the most important and fundamental things first, then learn about the post processing. A picture can still look fantastic without running it through photoshop.
These days much of the craftsmanship that used to take place in the darkroom coaxing a master print from a negative now takes place digitally. A technically well exposed frame can still produce a crappy print at the end of a less skilled artist. Conversely, technical perfection (second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing gobbledygook) has very little to do with art, or even creativity. Great "art" these days is even being shot on a cellphone.
Both camps (the technical-crats & the ones who are blissfully unaware of the minutiae) can produce "great" work.
Many beginners suffer from the same bad pshop skills (hey, look... I can make grass grow on his head, no make that two heads) and mistakes that beginning designers can (hey look, I can make EACH letter a different color, and a different font).
All that being said, if I was teaching beginning photographers I would remove almost everything to start (camera, lens, etc.) and go primitive and start with building pinhole cameras. Then I would progress to the end point which would be post-processing. Post-processing is huge though...
cheers,
michael
Learn the camera, learn composition, learn lighting, learn photographic techniques to get what you want such as second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing, etc. Once you can get it done right in camera then you can take it to the next level in photoshop (skin smoothing, removing hair wisps, correcting lens distortion, etc.).
Too many people want to be a pro right out of the gate, they buy photoshop, get a NAPP membership, a fancy computer (that is 99% of the time overkill), raid storage when they've only shot 500 pictures, etc but never bother to learn the fundamentals.
I'm all for learning on Digital, I think it helps someone learn better, but focus on learning the most important and fundamental things first, then learn about the post processing. A picture can still look fantastic without running it through photoshop.
These days much of the craftsmanship that used to take place in the darkroom coaxing a master print from a negative now takes place digitally. A technically well exposed frame can still produce a crappy print at the end of a less skilled artist. Conversely, technical perfection (second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing gobbledygook) has very little to do with art, or even creativity. Great "art" these days is even being shot on a cellphone.
Both camps (the technical-crats & the ones who are blissfully unaware of the minutiae) can produce "great" work.
Many beginners suffer from the same bad pshop skills (hey, look... I can make grass grow on his head, no make that two heads) and mistakes that beginning designers can (hey look, I can make EACH letter a different color, and a different font).
All that being said, if I was teaching beginning photographers I would remove almost everything to start (camera, lens, etc.) and go primitive and start with building pinhole cameras. Then I would progress to the end point which would be post-processing. Post-processing is huge though...
cheers,
michael
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 06:58 PM
Wait, what ? :rolleyes:
eburr
Mar 16, 07:36 PM
I saw on this website that it looks like they have been holding them for the morning. From what I have seen this is holding true, at least at Willow Bend and Stonebriar.
kirk26
Apr 12, 01:10 PM
Thanks. I definitely prefer Office for Mac than I do the Windows version.
E.Lizardo
Mar 24, 07:37 AM
I do wish people in this forum stop referring to 'the military' as though they were some sort of alien life-forms. 'The military' are people, and even if you happen to be in the oh-so-unique moral high ground of opposing war and violence from your comfortable desk, soldiers deserve the best kit we can afford to give them. Ditto for the returning veterans. And their families.
+1
Kind of sad,really.People being hated by the very people they are willing to die for.
*sigh*
+1
Kind of sad,really.People being hated by the very people they are willing to die for.
*sigh*
No comments:
Post a Comment