My niece did have to ask me how to fix her iPhone after a year, and it turned out she had just been frightened about updating to the 3.0 software. About three text messages to her, saying, "yes, that's right, go ahead and click okay" were all she needed. She uses it very well, she was just a little lost about software updates.
Jobs decided that what went wrong with tablet computers was that they were too complex for their profile. They should respond to touch, and be instinctive, just like the iPhone platform. Are you going to decide to write your thesis on it? No. It's for jotting a note, sending an e-mail, things like that. They did provide the keyboard/dock, if you want to enter a big bunch of prose.
Or, you can put Windows on the thing, and require all those menus, the pen for touch, and sell a half a dozen of them.
Amazon ran like a bunch of little pussies. But it was all show, their one-day fight against the companies that they had every intention to cave to anyway. The Kindle is a device. Amazon is a bookstore.
They actually complained that Macmillan has a "monopoly" on their content. They're the publisher! It's Amazon that has the possible charges of monopolism against them. They have the books, they sell the device, and they decide the price? Are you kidding?
Mind you, the price should be lower. But they'll be on a scale. If you don't want to read it, don't buy it. That should teach the publishers a lesson.
Talk to all the authors, the filmmakers and the content creators that use Macs. Fine, complain all you want, but at least some coherence would be good.
For starters, it's a prettier Kindle that also runs iPhone apps, and will spawn a line of touch apps with more complexity than the iPod Touch. Viz., the iWork stuff already coming to the platform. The Omni people have also announced they will get their apps to the platform. I'm quite sure there are third parties quite interested in this.
The Pages app can open and save as Word files. So I imagine it's the same as the iPhone and iPod Touch: there's a sandboxed space available to save files you create. It will sync through iTunes, just like the iPhone. I suppose the pustulent bubo that is Exchange will probably be supported the same way as it is on the iPhone: not complete, but pretty good, though they haven't announced it. They don't. This leads to fewer false promises.
As for the "locked-down" aspect, to get content from any publisher, you must use DRM. Anybody complain about this on the Kindle? It also supports epub, and pdf. In other words, all the main formats. DRM or no. Maybe publishers can be persuaded to drop DRM, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Your friends did not buy 'new' Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008. They shipped with 10.5 at that time, and if not, they'd be eligible for a $10 upgrade disk. Apple brought out Tiger in April 2005. And Leopard came out in October 2007.
Go with Leopard if you can. You may have your upgrade path ended there, but it will be supported for a long time.
As it will. H.264 already has lots of good editors. Can Flash still play on most web browsers? Sure. Those nice flashing banner ads will turn purple and green and red all you want.
Or an iPhone, iPad, or someone pissed off at how unstable -- and insecure -- Flash has made his computer. Oh, but it's open and free-- well, not exactly.
Exactly. The licensing will come in when you put up a pay site. There are lots of codecs that have reverse-engineered H.264, and can play it back.
I think playing these things "bare," or "nude," will encourage the web to standardize more, and that's all to the good. There are lots of codecs out there that are antiquated and useless.
That's a beta of a player that works with H.264. If you read down, you see that they want to bring support to Firefox, that it works first with Chrome and Safari and other Webkit browsers. (MPEG LA has said they will not charge royalties for web use for at least the next five years, if you don't charge the user, they won't charge you.) You can also imagine other players choosing other codecs. It depends on what codec you have installed, doesn't it? A website could have ogg and/or H.264 versions installed, as well as Flash -- for Internet Explorer users. (See Sublime's statement about what they're working on for the free release version -- free if you don't charge.
So websites that don't charge = free. If you charge for your video, as does the beta of YouTube Movies -- streaming feature films -- then you'd pay the license fee.
Just try it and see if it isn't impressive. No plugins. The playback is controlled by the HTML5 tag and the player.
The chatter about how "insecure" the Mac is, supposedly, is deafening in the pro-Windows and pro-Linux circles. Since 99.99% of Mac, iPhone, etc., users have never experienced this horrible invasion by malware, they think you're nuts.
Security is a huge problem for anyone using the Internet. It seems that Windows, after years of utter nightmare, may be locking things up, though each month, it seems, there's new updates. But the biggest vector this year is expected to be Adobe: Flash and Reader are incredibly vulnerable, apps and plugins, and the company seems to be asleep at the switch about issuing security upgrades.
The fundamental problem here is with Verisign and the other certificate issuers. Any evidence that this kind of hack, resulting in a man in the middle attack and a degradation of the use of certificates in general, is not possible in other OSes?
The certificate is from Verisign! Are you saying the iPhone shouldn't trust Verisign? Once the certificate is issued, nothing's going to reliably catch it unless Verisign wises up and revokes it.
This is actually a well-known attack on the certificate companies. Something to do with a maliciously-crafted certificate application. Can't remember the details.
Verisign and the rest should be catching this.
No "malicious software remover" is going to find anything wrong with this certificate at all. Time for Verisign to step up.
But I know you guys are too obsessed with bashing Apple to actually think straight.
Your reflexes are trained by the other OSes you've worked with. Mac users would howl (and did, in 1999-2000) when their interface was messed with. So you want to have things work as they do in the Windows/Linux world. I don't see any fundamental superiority of these interfaces. They're different, that's all. When you go for a menu, the Mac user's reflex since 1984 is to look at the name of the app in the menubar, and to click into the Window to bring it to the front if it doesn't have focus. If you changed that, Mac users would howl because they wouldn't be able to find the menus. Windows users who migrate haven't developed that reflex.
I've never said that Linux is bad. I don't happen to find it the most useful, that's it. It does take too much tinkering for my liberal-arts mind, even though I've learned a fair amount about computer stuff, being the family guru of computing, that kind of informal status. I use Windows too and don't hate it. There are areas in which each system is best. I know that if we all stuck by the "things go from dark gray to light gray" model, most of the all-caps frame of mind on these forums would be finished...
Well, there's no more resource fork, so no need for Resedit. Now you right-click on the app, open it as a package, and there's all the same stuff inside the app folder that there used to be in Resedit.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "VCR" you mean a touchscreen device with multitouch that can run pretty sophisticated apps, sure.
My niece did have to ask me how to fix her iPhone after a year, and it turned out she had just been frightened about updating to the 3.0 software. About three text messages to her, saying, "yes, that's right, go ahead and click okay" were all she needed. She uses it very well, she was just a little lost about software updates.
Jobs decided that what went wrong with tablet computers was that they were too complex for their profile. They should respond to touch, and be instinctive, just like the iPhone platform. Are you going to decide to write your thesis on it? No. It's for jotting a note, sending an e-mail, things like that. They did provide the keyboard/dock, if you want to enter a big bunch of prose.
Or, you can put Windows on the thing, and require all those menus, the pen for touch, and sell a half a dozen of them.
Amazon ran like a bunch of little pussies. But it was all show, their one-day fight against the companies that they had every intention to cave to anyway. The Kindle is a device. Amazon is a bookstore.
They actually complained that Macmillan has a "monopoly" on their content. They're the publisher! It's Amazon that has the possible charges of monopolism against them. They have the books, they sell the device, and they decide the price? Are you kidding?
Mind you, the price should be lower. But they'll be on a scale. If you don't want to read it, don't buy it. That should teach the publishers a lesson.
Talk to all the authors, the filmmakers and the content creators that use Macs. Fine, complain all you want, but at least some coherence would be good.
For starters, it's a prettier Kindle that also runs iPhone apps, and will spawn a line of touch apps with more complexity than the iPod Touch. Viz., the iWork stuff already coming to the platform. The Omni people have also announced they will get their apps to the platform. I'm quite sure there are third parties quite interested in this.
The Pages app can open and save as Word files. So I imagine it's the same as the iPhone and iPod Touch: there's a sandboxed space available to save files you create. It will sync through iTunes, just like the iPhone. I suppose the pustulent bubo that is Exchange will probably be supported the same way as it is on the iPhone: not complete, but pretty good, though they haven't announced it. They don't. This leads to fewer false promises.
As for the "locked-down" aspect, to get content from any publisher, you must use DRM. Anybody complain about this on the Kindle? It also supports epub, and pdf. In other words, all the main formats. DRM or no. Maybe publishers can be persuaded to drop DRM, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Especially since Windows doesn't support Windows 2000 anymore. No security updates, no?
Your friends did not buy 'new' Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008. They shipped with 10.5 at that time, and if not, they'd be eligible for a $10 upgrade disk. Apple brought out Tiger in April 2005. And Leopard came out in October 2007.
Go with Leopard if you can. You may have your upgrade path ended there, but it will be supported for a long time.
Apple doesn't advertise Cocoa. It runs faster, and is less buggy. Users notice that, you'd be sure.
Some poor lost Mac soul braggin' on Windows 7. Thought I'd seen everything.
As it will. H.264 already has lots of good editors. Can Flash still play on most web browsers? Sure. Those nice flashing banner ads will turn purple and green and red all you want.
Not so, according to MPEG LA. No fees if you don't sell the video. Firefox doesn't sell the video.
Or an iPhone, iPad, or someone pissed off at how unstable -- and insecure -- Flash has made his computer. Oh, but it's open and free-- well, not exactly.
Ah, well, if they use a format that implements DRM, then Theora is out, right? Isn't DRM against its EULA?
I don't know how much of the industry will go to which codec on technical grounds, but if you want to charge, the producers are going to want DRM.
But if you want to stream free, you can choose whatever you want. The player can make the choices you want.
See the HTML5 beta of YouTube? You don't have to do a thing.
Exactly. The licensing will come in when you put up a pay site. There are lots of codecs that have reverse-engineered H.264, and can play it back.
I think playing these things "bare," or "nude," will encourage the web to standardize more, and that's all to the good. There are lots of codecs out there that are antiquated and useless.
I've got Theora on my Mac.
http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/
If I EVER ran across that format, I'd install it.
Oh, but I could have so many nice animated ads if I didn't use ClickToFlash.
Funny how that Linux revolutionary spirit definitely has its limits, doesn't it?
There's no real need to do so. For starters, they could use this -- just the first of many to come.
http://jilion.com/sublime/video
That's a beta of a player that works with H.264. If you read down, you see that they want to bring support to Firefox, that it works first with Chrome and Safari and other Webkit browsers. (MPEG LA has said they will not charge royalties for web use for at least the next five years, if you don't charge the user, they won't charge you.) You can also imagine other players choosing other codecs. It depends on what codec you have installed, doesn't it? A website could have ogg and/or H.264 versions installed, as well as Flash -- for Internet Explorer users. (See Sublime's statement about what they're working on for the free release version -- free if you don't charge.
So websites that don't charge = free. If you charge for your video, as does the beta of YouTube Movies -- streaming feature films -- then you'd pay the license fee.
Just try it and see if it isn't impressive. No plugins. The playback is controlled by the HTML5 tag and the player.
Funny, wasn't the open and wonderful Google app store the victim of an app that contained malware in the opening week?
The chatter about how "insecure" the Mac is, supposedly, is deafening in the pro-Windows and pro-Linux circles. Since 99.99% of Mac, iPhone, etc., users have never experienced this horrible invasion by malware, they think you're nuts.
Security is a huge problem for anyone using the Internet. It seems that Windows, after years of utter nightmare, may be locking things up, though each month, it seems, there's new updates. But the biggest vector this year is expected to be Adobe: Flash and Reader are incredibly vulnerable, apps and plugins, and the company seems to be asleep at the switch about issuing security upgrades.
The fundamental problem here is with Verisign and the other certificate issuers. Any evidence that this kind of hack, resulting in a man in the middle attack and a degradation of the use of certificates in general, is not possible in other OSes?
The certificate is from Verisign! Are you saying the iPhone shouldn't trust Verisign? Once the certificate is issued, nothing's going to reliably catch it unless Verisign wises up and revokes it.
This is actually a well-known attack on the certificate companies. Something to do with a maliciously-crafted certificate application. Can't remember the details.
Verisign and the rest should be catching this.
No "malicious software remover" is going to find anything wrong with this certificate at all. Time for Verisign to step up.
But I know you guys are too obsessed with bashing Apple to actually think straight.
Your reflexes are trained by the other OSes you've worked with. Mac users would howl (and did, in 1999-2000) when their interface was messed with. So you want to have things work as they do in the Windows/Linux world. I don't see any fundamental superiority of these interfaces. They're different, that's all. When you go for a menu, the Mac user's reflex since 1984 is to look at the name of the app in the menubar, and to click into the Window to bring it to the front if it doesn't have focus. If you changed that, Mac users would howl because they wouldn't be able to find the menus. Windows users who migrate haven't developed that reflex.
I've never said that Linux is bad. I don't happen to find it the most useful, that's it. It does take too much tinkering for my liberal-arts mind, even though I've learned a fair amount about computer stuff, being the family guru of computing, that kind of informal status. I use Windows too and don't hate it. There are areas in which each system is best. I know that if we all stuck by the "things go from dark gray to light gray" model, most of the all-caps frame of mind on these forums would be finished...
Well, there's no more resource fork, so no need for Resedit. Now you right-click on the app, open it as a package, and there's all the same stuff inside the app folder that there used to be in Resedit.