tribalogical
Jun 10, 04:06 PM
How long after you make a purchase does the App Store remember your password so you don't have to enter it again? I presume that's what happened in this case.
It depends on your setting. Even logged in, it typically confirms once by asking if you want to purchase that app.
It was cool of Apple to arrange a refund. That should be standard policy, especially if an app isn't even completely downloaded.
For 99-cent apps, I'm less concerned about "try before buying"... when they start costing $10 and up, I think there has to be a way to 'preview' them...
Tough to figure out how, though!
It depends on your setting. Even logged in, it typically confirms once by asking if you want to purchase that app.
It was cool of Apple to arrange a refund. That should be standard policy, especially if an app isn't even completely downloaded.
For 99-cent apps, I'm less concerned about "try before buying"... when they start costing $10 and up, I think there has to be a way to 'preview' them...
Tough to figure out how, though!
iDrinkKoolAid
Jul 10, 12:22 PM
Really? I love the whole Inspector idea and the side toolbar in Word type thing.
Well, I guess these kinds of things are preferential. Perhaps I'm more used to Micro$oft Office toolbars.
Anyhow, I find myself using Pages more often. I'll just tell my boss to buy a Mac Mini if he wants to read my documents. :D
If Apple does come out with a spreadsheet, it better be more usable than what one can get currently on Pages. One major omission is that one cannot create a graph directly from a table (you have to 'cut and paste').
Well, I guess these kinds of things are preferential. Perhaps I'm more used to Micro$oft Office toolbars.
Anyhow, I find myself using Pages more often. I'll just tell my boss to buy a Mac Mini if he wants to read my documents. :D
If Apple does come out with a spreadsheet, it better be more usable than what one can get currently on Pages. One major omission is that one cannot create a graph directly from a table (you have to 'cut and paste').
SpaceKyd
Apr 14, 12:35 AM
Fail apple!! Faiiillllllll!
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀
iGlow
Jul 21, 12:26 PM
with the education macs the share will rise in september because schools are upgrading there computers:cool:
more...
myamid
Nov 4, 08:10 AM
If it's taking you two minutes to resume a session and two minutes plus to suspend it, on that machine you mentioned the specs of, something is frickin' wrong with that machine.
2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:
- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11
And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.
So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.
btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.
bb
I get similar performance on my slighly slower iMac.... And my VM images are on a less than ideal external FW drive!!! I'll second the opinion that if your system is significatly slower than this with Parallels, there's something VERY wrong with your Mac...
2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:
- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11
And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.
So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.
btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.
bb
I get similar performance on my slighly slower iMac.... And my VM images are on a less than ideal external FW drive!!! I'll second the opinion that if your system is significatly slower than this with Parallels, there's something VERY wrong with your Mac...
Wes Jordan
Jan 28, 10:21 PM
You haven't lost a cent, until you actually sell off your stocks. I'll be holding on to mine until they climb back up and beyond. Besides, having another rate cut is around the corner - this may happen sooner than you think.
Smart. So many people get caught up in the current price. Apple isn't going out of business anytime soon. Hold on to it, it will go up again. Maybe not very soon with what economists predict the economy to do over the next year, but most recessions only last ~9 months.
Smart. So many people get caught up in the current price. Apple isn't going out of business anytime soon. Hold on to it, it will go up again. Maybe not very soon with what economists predict the economy to do over the next year, but most recessions only last ~9 months.
more...
.JPG "Spiderman birthday cake and")
bankshot
Nov 3, 06:12 PM
From the screenshots alone, it looks like a Cocoa app, which pretty much guarantees it'll be faster because it won't have the extra Qt bloated code in it ;)
Right, and Cocoa isn't the slightest bit bloated? :rolleyes: (can you say runtime messaging and binding overhead?)
Regardless of the relative difference in overhead, I'd expect it to be negligible in both cases. This is just the gui that sits around the virtual machine, a nice window dressing to make it accessible to the user. It should only be exercised when you're doing stuff like editing configurations or attaching devices. The real meat of either VMware or Parallels should have nothing to do with what gui toolkit they use to display the window.
It's exciting to see this finally moving along. I really think virtualization will play a much larger role in everyday computing in the future. Forget backwards compatibility nightmares, just virtualize it. I'm already hogging way too much disk space on my Macbook with a few Parallels VMs that I use on a regular basis. Whenever Apple releases an affordable desktop Mac that can take more than 4 GB of memory, I might check out VMware at that time and see if it's any better.
Right, and Cocoa isn't the slightest bit bloated? :rolleyes: (can you say runtime messaging and binding overhead?)
Regardless of the relative difference in overhead, I'd expect it to be negligible in both cases. This is just the gui that sits around the virtual machine, a nice window dressing to make it accessible to the user. It should only be exercised when you're doing stuff like editing configurations or attaching devices. The real meat of either VMware or Parallels should have nothing to do with what gui toolkit they use to display the window.
It's exciting to see this finally moving along. I really think virtualization will play a much larger role in everyday computing in the future. Forget backwards compatibility nightmares, just virtualize it. I'm already hogging way too much disk space on my Macbook with a few Parallels VMs that I use on a regular basis. Whenever Apple releases an affordable desktop Mac that can take more than 4 GB of memory, I might check out VMware at that time and see if it's any better.
DavidLeblond
Apr 15, 02:55 PM
Apple bought OS X too. :D
I'm arguing that both were massive undertakings by both parties. My OS X example was tainted with sarcasm if you didn't catch the little :rolleyes: there.
Both OS X and Chrome OS (and Android, and iOS) borrow heavily from others, either through acquisitions or from the open source community. To claim Google is any inferior here is just trying to stir the pot, especially calling the poster Troll, that is just insulting and uncalled for.
Both companies deserve props from providing the software they do, neither deserves scorn that some posters here like to dish out.
So what ? OS X is Mach/XNU, Apple didn't make that. It's also a GNU/Berkeley userland, Apple didn't make that either. Again guys, drop the non-sense competition, this thread is about a release of OS X, not some type of Google bashing contest.
Poster wasn't stirring the pot. One person said "OMG Apple built OSX on top of Unix! They don't build ANYTHING original. Google on the other hand build Android." to which someone pointed out "Uh, no Google bought Android" and others pointed out that Android was built on top of Linux too.
Paraphrasing there.
I'm arguing that both were massive undertakings by both parties. My OS X example was tainted with sarcasm if you didn't catch the little :rolleyes: there.
Both OS X and Chrome OS (and Android, and iOS) borrow heavily from others, either through acquisitions or from the open source community. To claim Google is any inferior here is just trying to stir the pot, especially calling the poster Troll, that is just insulting and uncalled for.
Both companies deserve props from providing the software they do, neither deserves scorn that some posters here like to dish out.
So what ? OS X is Mach/XNU, Apple didn't make that. It's also a GNU/Berkeley userland, Apple didn't make that either. Again guys, drop the non-sense competition, this thread is about a release of OS X, not some type of Google bashing contest.
Poster wasn't stirring the pot. One person said "OMG Apple built OSX on top of Unix! They don't build ANYTHING original. Google on the other hand build Android." to which someone pointed out "Uh, no Google bought Android" and others pointed out that Android was built on top of Linux too.
Paraphrasing there.
more...
Thunderhawks
Apr 13, 02:18 PM
Will there be a Matte option? :D
Will it come in white?
Will it come in white?
Peace
Sep 14, 11:59 AM
I'll get there! I'm just now becoming a Starbucks nerd.
:confused: I dunno. Says so online but maybe they are just gimmicking! Or maybe you have the hookup! :p
Oh well, I'll get a gold card one of these days.
Wait till you get that platinum card !
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/3530897226_34f89221c5.jpg
:confused: I dunno. Says so online but maybe they are just gimmicking! Or maybe you have the hookup! :p
Oh well, I'll get a gold card one of these days.
Wait till you get that platinum card !
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/3530897226_34f89221c5.jpg
more...
0815
May 3, 08:06 AM
Nice upgrade :) ... but I was hoping for an 500GB SSD option :(
PBF
Apr 14, 10:16 PM
Nice.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
VanillaBean
Mar 13, 04:00 PM
Anyone have any inventory updates for stores in the area?
http://ocunwired.ocregister.com/2011/03/13/ipad-2-sold-out-at-apple-store/6179/
Sold out at all Apple stores according to the OC Register.
http://ocunwired.ocregister.com/2011/03/13/ipad-2-sold-out-at-apple-store/6179/
Sold out at all Apple stores according to the OC Register.
KnightWRX
Apr 13, 10:26 AM
You are looking at the "evidence" but refuse to see it. No idea if it is accurate - but it is in print.
Sorry, refuse to see what ? You posted a TechCrunch article which refuted itself. You did not post an engadget story. What am I refusing to see exactly ? I'm reading the links you supplied. Supply links that at least support your position next time, and I won't "refuse to see it" like you say.
Next, your Engadget article was refuted. Hardly justification to propose as fact that apple "envisionned" anything as far as Thunderbolt goes.
I'm not questioning that they played a role, be it major or minor, I'm questioning the importance Chuppa is giving Apple which his choice of "envision". All history of TB points to the contrary. Your engadget article is the first to say that Apple envisionned it and it was quickly refuted.
So again : Citation Needed.
Sorry, refuse to see what ? You posted a TechCrunch article which refuted itself. You did not post an engadget story. What am I refusing to see exactly ? I'm reading the links you supplied. Supply links that at least support your position next time, and I won't "refuse to see it" like you say.
Next, your Engadget article was refuted. Hardly justification to propose as fact that apple "envisionned" anything as far as Thunderbolt goes.
I'm not questioning that they played a role, be it major or minor, I'm questioning the importance Chuppa is giving Apple which his choice of "envision". All history of TB points to the contrary. Your engadget article is the first to say that Apple envisionned it and it was quickly refuted.
So again : Citation Needed.
more...
Psilocybin
Apr 19, 03:26 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Uhm. Your Point is? Everyone has different wants and needs Also nobody said the processor upgrade is useless or "unwelcome". Some people want more fps when doing moderate gaming including myself and I definately won't be welcoming the intel hd into my house. I will be waiting for ivy bridge
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Uhm. Your Point is? Everyone has different wants and needs Also nobody said the processor upgrade is useless or "unwelcome". Some people want more fps when doing moderate gaming including myself and I definately won't be welcoming the intel hd into my house. I will be waiting for ivy bridge
Mattlike
Sep 14, 09:56 AM
Thanks. Watch for my YouTube� unboxing later. :p
haha, I look forward to it. :)
haha, I look forward to it. :)
more...
KPOM
May 3, 08:42 AM
You need some strong suction cups to remove the screen (the whole back chassis is one piece, the only access is via the screen) and more importantly a dust-free environment, otherwise when you put the screen back on (or rather the glass pane in front of the actual screen) you can easily trap dust between the glass and the monitor.
The difficult thing is the dust-free environment.
So, no, it isn't possible for the "non-geek" OP. ;)
The difficult thing is the dust-free environment.
So, no, it isn't possible for the "non-geek" OP. ;)
Djlild7hina
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
Why would i buy the white iphone 4 when i already have one
^this. will definitely get the white iphone 5 whenever it comes out... (hopefully launch)
^this. will definitely get the white iphone 5 whenever it comes out... (hopefully launch)
Anaemik
Apr 11, 08:18 PM
Are there any hard drives that can even unleash 1.25 GBps? :)
Not yet, but assuming that there won't be within a reasonable timeframe seems silly. Why on earth would you want a new standard that we're going to have to live with for the next 10-20 yrs that has its bandwidth saturated almost on day of release? Also, I think that looking at this as *just* another way of connecting external drives is to be massively missing the big picture with Thunderbolt. Finally, Thunderbolt is capable of much more than 1.25GBps. I believe in theory it can eventually scale to 100Gbps over optical.
Not yet, but assuming that there won't be within a reasonable timeframe seems silly. Why on earth would you want a new standard that we're going to have to live with for the next 10-20 yrs that has its bandwidth saturated almost on day of release? Also, I think that looking at this as *just* another way of connecting external drives is to be massively missing the big picture with Thunderbolt. Finally, Thunderbolt is capable of much more than 1.25GBps. I believe in theory it can eventually scale to 100Gbps over optical.
Eldiablojoe
Apr 30, 03:29 PM
good job everyone, including plutonius and appleguy
now it is basically one spanking new 6-villagers game, starting tonight, with one wolf, one seer and likely one hunter.
with a twist: both the seer and the hunter could also be the wolf.
everyone is suspect.
make it a short night guys, see you all tomorrowUmmm, I'm not sure this game is over yet... there's still an infected Villager out there...
now it is basically one spanking new 6-villagers game, starting tonight, with one wolf, one seer and likely one hunter.
with a twist: both the seer and the hunter could also be the wolf.
everyone is suspect.
make it a short night guys, see you all tomorrowUmmm, I'm not sure this game is over yet... there's still an infected Villager out there...
macadam212
Apr 12, 11:58 AM
Ever since the iPhone came out I've said that it will eventually replace the iPod. That day may be coming sooner than we guessed.
Someday the iPhone will be just like the iPad. There's no 'iPod Touch,' just an 'iPhone' that you buy with or without a 3G or 4G chip. And it's up to you if you want to buy service to go along with it or not. (They could still call it the 'iPhone.' The chip-less one would come with a booklet telling you about Skype and Viber and other wifi phone services.)
Such a device would naturally go on sale before the holiday season, so maybe we're close to that happening. I don't think it'll be this year, but maybe they're getting us ready for the year when it does happen.
Does it really have to be one or the other, why can't both products exist happily.
Look the iPhone and iPod Touch are almost the same thing, and when the iPhone was introduced it was described as the best iPod ever. With that in mind it makes sense for them to be released at the same time. As for the other iPods they do exactly what you expect from a music player, they play music. Oh and they are still selling tones of them!
Someday the iPhone will be just like the iPad. There's no 'iPod Touch,' just an 'iPhone' that you buy with or without a 3G or 4G chip. And it's up to you if you want to buy service to go along with it or not. (They could still call it the 'iPhone.' The chip-less one would come with a booklet telling you about Skype and Viber and other wifi phone services.)
Such a device would naturally go on sale before the holiday season, so maybe we're close to that happening. I don't think it'll be this year, but maybe they're getting us ready for the year when it does happen.
Does it really have to be one or the other, why can't both products exist happily.
Look the iPhone and iPod Touch are almost the same thing, and when the iPhone was introduced it was described as the best iPod ever. With that in mind it makes sense for them to be released at the same time. As for the other iPods they do exactly what you expect from a music player, they play music. Oh and they are still selling tones of them!
ayeying
Oct 18, 10:13 PM
My first thought was; the AIR is loud?? but then I realized you meant the cool pad :eek:
Yeah, my bad :D The cooling pad is loud but its not as loud as my first HP Pavilion laptop with a Pentium 4 desktop (yep, a desktop processor) processor in it. That thing had 3 fans running all the time.
Yeah, my bad :D The cooling pad is loud but its not as loud as my first HP Pavilion laptop with a Pentium 4 desktop (yep, a desktop processor) processor in it. That thing had 3 fans running all the time.
TwoSocEmBoppers
Mar 16, 07:56 AM
Ni shi zhong guo ren ma?
If so, I'm in line at Brea as well. Hard to believe that we managed to get in as early as we did.
Wait are you inside?!?!?! I got here about 5:30 and I couldn't get in. Outside Red Robin.
If so, I'm in line at Brea as well. Hard to believe that we managed to get in as early as we did.
Wait are you inside?!?!?! I got here about 5:30 and I couldn't get in. Outside Red Robin.
Pillar
Sep 13, 10:34 PM
magic trackpad. just set it up and i'm liking it so far.
沒有留言:
張貼留言