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.
friendship wallpaper scraps
Friends Forever Orkut Scraps,
Send Navratri Orkut Scraps,
orkut scraps
orkut Scraps in Hindi
friends Orkut scraps
Free Orkut Images Scraps
Friends Orkut Scrap Book,
Friends Orkut Scrap Book,
Lovers And Friends - Orkut
Friends Forever Orkut Comments
Happy Diwali Orkut Scraps,
orkut scraps
orkut scraps
friends Orkut scraps
Friends for ever Scraps
friends#39; scrapbook to scrap
malayalam scrap for orkut,
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.
kalafalas
Sep 29, 11:21 PM
i live in teh SF bay area (east bay), and i usually get about 4 bars of 3G outside, with about 1mbps down, and 150kbps up (horrible) speeds. but inside... i'm lucky to get two bars of 3G, and i it drops the call more than 50% of the time, and i have to manually switch to edge. and even outside when i get good service, its about 30% fail rate.
Step up your game AT&T, you knew what you were getting into when you saw what this godlike device could do, and what it required to do it. and then you failed to meet the requirements, europe seems to handle it just fine, so what the ****?
at least so far MMS has been flawless, that deserves props
Step up your game AT&T, you knew what you were getting into when you saw what this godlike device could do, and what it required to do it. and then you failed to meet the requirements, europe seems to handle it just fine, so what the ****?
at least so far MMS has been flawless, that deserves props
reteper
Apr 13, 03:37 PM
If I could ditch the PS3, Airport Extreme, ATV2 and get games, movies, tv channels, etc, as well as wireless capabilities and a 1080P picture, I'd be interested.
Apple would likely work through the thing from the inside out to make it aesthetically pleasing, thin as hell and offer only one plug (instead of the rats nest most entertainment centers hold) and your iphone / ipad would be the remote. Oh, don't forget that setup would be a breeze and with Facetime built in, they would draw in the telephony market too.
No more clutter and full apple integration. What's not to like?
Apple would likely work through the thing from the inside out to make it aesthetically pleasing, thin as hell and offer only one plug (instead of the rats nest most entertainment centers hold) and your iphone / ipad would be the remote. Oh, don't forget that setup would be a breeze and with Facetime built in, they would draw in the telephony market too.
No more clutter and full apple integration. What's not to like?
bluebomberman
Jul 12, 02:31 PM
Snowy-
Any professional copy shop should be able to take your sequential, 5.5" x 8.5" size pages and turn it into a booklet with binding in the middle. My understanding is that they have super-expensive machines that can do that without much effort.
I don't think you need to futz around with a non-sequential layout unless you plan to print this out yourself without the use of fancy $40,000+ copiers.
Any professional copy shop should be able to take your sequential, 5.5" x 8.5" size pages and turn it into a booklet with binding in the middle. My understanding is that they have super-expensive machines that can do that without much effort.
I don't think you need to futz around with a non-sequential layout unless you plan to print this out yourself without the use of fancy $40,000+ copiers.
pgmrob3
Apr 13, 01:57 PM
Isn't that just a big ipad, or an even bigger, ipod touch. :rolleyes:
�algiris
Apr 15, 01:43 PM
976.6 MB wtf
Apple: Learn from Google http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/software-updates-courgette
Apple is just stupid right? News flash for you - if they wanted to do patching instead of replacing files they would be doing it.
Apple: Learn from Google http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/software-updates-courgette
Apple is just stupid right? News flash for you - if they wanted to do patching instead of replacing files they would be doing it.
dba7dba
Apr 22, 01:33 AM
Have you seen the pictures in Nilay Patel's article about the suit (http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/)? They copied the look of the iPhone, exactly. Hell, they even copied some of the icons -- the Phone icon, the iTunes icon. Why would they make the phone icon a white handset angled up and to the right on a green background if they weren't deliberately trying to make it look like an iPhone?
If you're Apple, you absolutely have to sue over this. Otherwise you're saying, okay, anybody who wants to can just make a clone that looks exactly like the iPhone. Anyone who owns a valuable brand has to defend it.
Image (http://thisismynext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg)
Image (http://thisismynext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/avsamics2.jpg)
Hm the galaxy looks thinner from the side. can samsung sue apple for making a big deal about ipad2 being thinner (or was it thinnest)?
If you're Apple, you absolutely have to sue over this. Otherwise you're saying, okay, anybody who wants to can just make a clone that looks exactly like the iPhone. Anyone who owns a valuable brand has to defend it.
Image (http://thisismynext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg)
Image (http://thisismynext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/avsamics2.jpg)
Hm the galaxy looks thinner from the side. can samsung sue apple for making a big deal about ipad2 being thinner (or was it thinnest)?
JRM PowerPod
Jul 11, 08:19 PM
If Microsoft try to undercut the iPod in price. Steve will get revenge. He will start bundling all new macs with his pirated version of Windows XP Pro and Office Pro. hehe cop that Bill
tbrinkma
Apr 28, 01:01 PM
All boats except Symbian (it's too huge a s[t]inking ship to be lifted by any tide) and Windows Phone 7 ( they made a paper boat in the hope of getting lifted but sadly it looks like the tide is too big for it to ride)
Ok, sure. There's exceptions for boats which have been so neglected they're keels have rusted out (Symbian), and boats with cast-lead structural members (WinP7)... :p
Ok, sure. There's exceptions for boats which have been so neglected they're keels have rusted out (Symbian), and boats with cast-lead structural members (WinP7)... :p
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!
Don't panic
Apr 26, 03:59 PM
so it's plutonius with 5.
hopefully you guys are right (although that would make me and appleguy prime suspects).
what are the little arrows next to the quote button?
hopefully you guys are right (although that would make me and appleguy prime suspects).
what are the little arrows next to the quote button?
antpod
Apr 13, 11:26 PM
FINALLY. I decided to either wait for this or the iP5, whichever came first. eff yeah finally! My 3GS broke in January and i've decided to be phoneless for a couple months as an experiment on myself and im soooooooo ready to have a phone again.
Mystikal
Mar 15, 11:30 AM
I got a 64 AT&T. Trading it for a 16 wifi and cash to some nice people. Today worked out :D
ten-oak-druid
Apr 13, 08:20 PM
white iphone 4 = iphone 5
charlituna
Apr 23, 10:54 PM
The T-Mobile deal isn't a for sure thing. Likely, but the FTC could block it. Also, as the article states T-Mobile's towers use a different frequencies.
Given that, I'm sure that Apple has been testing a possible T-Mobile iphone for a while. Heck ATT probably wouldn't have tried this buy without knowing that the iphone was ready to go on T-Mobile's towers. Then they don't have to worry about making any adjustments until they are ready to take the tower LTE.
The real question is whether Apple can conceivable making a single line up of iphones that works with ATT, T-Mobile and Verizon or will they have to do three lines. I'm hoping the former cause if I sign up for one and it sucks I'd love to be able to switch without having to return my iphone, buy a new one, resync etc
Given that, I'm sure that Apple has been testing a possible T-Mobile iphone for a while. Heck ATT probably wouldn't have tried this buy without knowing that the iphone was ready to go on T-Mobile's towers. Then they don't have to worry about making any adjustments until they are ready to take the tower LTE.
The real question is whether Apple can conceivable making a single line up of iphones that works with ATT, T-Mobile and Verizon or will they have to do three lines. I'm hoping the former cause if I sign up for one and it sucks I'd love to be able to switch without having to return my iphone, buy a new one, resync etc
iDoiStuff
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
does this still have lag/freezing issues?
I know when lion beta was first released it would lag and freeze a lot! also it was very unstable, 80% of the apps would crash constantly.
I know when lion beta was first released it would lag and freeze a lot! also it was very unstable, 80% of the apps would crash constantly.
trip1ex
May 3, 08:59 AM
No charge to select trackpad instead of mouse.
blacktape242
Mar 1, 10:58 AM
your idol huh.....way to reach your full potential.
sheen has gone completely mental.
"cocaine is a hell of a drug!"
sheen has gone completely mental.
"cocaine is a hell of a drug!"
Tower-Union
Sep 20, 10:08 AM
Disregard, did a little googling :p
swarmster
Apr 22, 09:36 AM
As expected.
Yep. As an added bonus, LTE networks might actually be available in more than select locations sometime around launch. They're not missing much this year.
Not sure I understand, I've had 4G on my Evo for over a year now...
Hrm....
The "4G" on your Evo is WiMax, a completely different standard being pushed by Clearwire and supported by Sprint. It allowed Sprint to get a "4G" network up and running fairly quickly, but it's likely to be dead-ended with the proliferation of LTE and/or Clearwire blowing through its venture capital. Sprint's CEO has already said they'd be open to switching over to LTE in the future, which they really should do or end up being left behind in a similar way to their CDMA situation (except without Verizon to back them up).
Yep. As an added bonus, LTE networks might actually be available in more than select locations sometime around launch. They're not missing much this year.
Not sure I understand, I've had 4G on my Evo for over a year now...
Hrm....
The "4G" on your Evo is WiMax, a completely different standard being pushed by Clearwire and supported by Sprint. It allowed Sprint to get a "4G" network up and running fairly quickly, but it's likely to be dead-ended with the proliferation of LTE and/or Clearwire blowing through its venture capital. Sprint's CEO has already said they'd be open to switching over to LTE in the future, which they really should do or end up being left behind in a similar way to their CDMA situation (except without Verizon to back them up).
Mr. McMac
Sep 14, 09:31 PM
Where did you get this?
Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/will-not-fix-your-computer/dp/B0001TP7BW
Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/will-not-fix-your-computer/dp/B0001TP7BW
hamis92
Apr 22, 04:41 PM
I agree. I think iPhone 5 will be if not literally then at least from feature perspective "iPhone 4S".
And I agree with you. I think it would make sense to call it iPhone 5 though - I think the "ProductName ProductVersion#" naming convention Apple has started using lately makes a lot of sense and is way simpler to understand for the average Joe than something like iPhone 3GS.
And I agree with you. I think it would make sense to call it iPhone 5 though - I think the "ProductName ProductVersion#" naming convention Apple has started using lately makes a lot of sense and is way simpler to understand for the average Joe than something like iPhone 3GS.
RBR2
Apr 13, 08:39 PM
It's all rather moot till they get authentic to the standard, and use Fiber Optics!
Substituting old fashioned wire is so misleading.
A bit faster yes, but nothing like Fiber.
This is rather amusing. I found this Apple Document (http://images.apple.com/xserve/pdf/L322097A_FibrChnl_TB.pdf) about Fibre Channel. You will notice that Apple has copper cables available. It would be interesting to compare Fibre Channel with Thunderbolt. Apart from TB integrating video, TB looks a lot like an evolution of Fibre Channel.
As TB progresses the transfer rates should increase which can only be good.
Moot? Whatever.
Substituting old fashioned wire is so misleading.
A bit faster yes, but nothing like Fiber.
This is rather amusing. I found this Apple Document (http://images.apple.com/xserve/pdf/L322097A_FibrChnl_TB.pdf) about Fibre Channel. You will notice that Apple has copper cables available. It would be interesting to compare Fibre Channel with Thunderbolt. Apart from TB integrating video, TB looks a lot like an evolution of Fibre Channel.
As TB progresses the transfer rates should increase which can only be good.
Moot? Whatever.
CubusX
Oct 1, 06:11 AM
Dropped calls is a feature of the iphone... enjoy ;)
There's an app for that.:)
There's an app for that.:)