pudrums
Feb 1, 08:24 AM
@Gem�tlichkeit: Yup, it's my favorite BR album.
zombierunner
May 3, 08:39 AM
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5
Apple Magic Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard (British) & User's Guide (English)
Microsoft Office Mac 2011 - Home and Student Edition
AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac/eMac
Apple Remote
HP Photosmart Wireless e-All-in-One Printer
Will Update RAM to 12GB by buying 8GB RAM from Crucial
SORTED!
CAN'T BELIEVE 2GB GRAPHICS ..SWEET
Question - Do I get the same ram from crucial as for the 2010 model? crucial doesn't show 2011 imac option yet. wait?
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5
Apple Magic Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard (British) & User's Guide (English)
Microsoft Office Mac 2011 - Home and Student Edition
AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac/eMac
Apple Remote
HP Photosmart Wireless e-All-in-One Printer
Will Update RAM to 12GB by buying 8GB RAM from Crucial
SORTED!
CAN'T BELIEVE 2GB GRAPHICS ..SWEET
Question - Do I get the same ram from crucial as for the 2010 model? crucial doesn't show 2011 imac option yet. wait?
Reach9
Apr 18, 10:12 PM
Are you guys for real?
I'm not really into apple or apple products, but there is no big mystery behind the string ix.Mac.MarketingName (except for 'Mac', that is)
'ix' is and object or a variable in whatever programming language they've written this in.
'Mac' and 'MarketingName' are either methods or keys (in a hash) belonging to the 'ix' variable/object.
Let me illustrate with a simple javascript/JSON variable:
var ix = {
Leonardo DiCaprio
more...
It is produced by Leonardo
Starring : Leonardo DiCaprio
more...
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio
Anyway, the movie was very
more...
leonardo dicaprio young photos
This film stars Leonardo
more...
FRANK SINATRA MOVIE quot;YOUNG AT
leonardo dicaprio young
more...
The movie is bigger than any
Leonardo DiCaprio?
more...
In the movie, a group of young
Even though I was so young and
more...
from Leonardo DiCaprio.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays
Dicky Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio)
I'm not really into apple or apple products, but there is no big mystery behind the string ix.Mac.MarketingName (except for 'Mac', that is)
'ix' is and object or a variable in whatever programming language they've written this in.
'Mac' and 'MarketingName' are either methods or keys (in a hash) belonging to the 'ix' variable/object.
Let me illustrate with a simple javascript/JSON variable:
var ix = {
Cheerwino
Apr 14, 08:06 AM
Guys, I didn't want to start a new thread, but...
Should I buy the ix.Mac.MarketingName now? I've heard the ix.Mac.MarketingName 2 is going to be much more betterer. Should I buy now or wait? I was waiting for the price to come down, but it hasn't changed in the entire 5 minutes I've known about this product...
Sent by ix.Man.NotVerySerious
If it has retina and Thunderbolt, I'm getting first gen. You can always sell it on Craigslist the day before Gen 2 comes out for twice what you paid for it.
Should I buy the ix.Mac.MarketingName now? I've heard the ix.Mac.MarketingName 2 is going to be much more betterer. Should I buy now or wait? I was waiting for the price to come down, but it hasn't changed in the entire 5 minutes I've known about this product...
Sent by ix.Man.NotVerySerious
If it has retina and Thunderbolt, I'm getting first gen. You can always sell it on Craigslist the day before Gen 2 comes out for twice what you paid for it.
more...
SandynJosh
Jun 6, 05:33 PM
Yeah, "accidentally," sure. :rolleyes: The price and the buttons on the app store are clearly labeled. You don't just "accidentally" purchase this. It's only believable if the kid is still an infant and randomly tap on stuff, but 11 year old?
Maybe he was hunting for an Easter Egg.... :)
Maybe he was hunting for an Easter Egg.... :)
Rowbear
Apr 10, 06:06 PM
Hi all. I photographed this American Robin today at the Fletcher Wildlife Refuge in Ottawa.
400mm, 1/2000sec, f/5.6, ISO 400, fill flash
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG8071-merle/1246861209_KdaNb-XL.jpg
400mm, 1/2000sec, f/5.6, ISO 400, fill flash
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG8071-merle/1246861209_KdaNb-XL.jpg
more...
caspersoong
Apr 29, 03:52 AM
Great! Can't wait for the universal iPhone.
Popeye206
Apr 28, 12:36 PM
Question should be, why does it matter how many android devices there are? There is still a one to one relationship, one customer buys-one device. Its android smartphones vs Apple Smartphones.
So two against 20+?
It does matter because different devices have different costs, and features. Sure the iPhone isn't for everyone. Some people have to have a keyboard and that automatically deletes the iPhone from the choices. Some people think the Pink phones are cute and will go that route. Etc., etc.
But when it comes down to overall features and functionality, the iPhone is still cleaning house against them all.
However, I'll say it one more time for the Android boys that don't seem to get it... it's not the iPhone vs Android. It's the iPhone vs the Thunderbolt, or the EVO or ???? None of which have come close to matching the iPhone sales.
And lastly... it's not Apple and Google that should be worried... RIM should be. They are loosing market share faster than I can type this post.
So two against 20+?
It does matter because different devices have different costs, and features. Sure the iPhone isn't for everyone. Some people have to have a keyboard and that automatically deletes the iPhone from the choices. Some people think the Pink phones are cute and will go that route. Etc., etc.
But when it comes down to overall features and functionality, the iPhone is still cleaning house against them all.
However, I'll say it one more time for the Android boys that don't seem to get it... it's not the iPhone vs Android. It's the iPhone vs the Thunderbolt, or the EVO or ???? None of which have come close to matching the iPhone sales.
And lastly... it's not Apple and Google that should be worried... RIM should be. They are loosing market share faster than I can type this post.
more...
JS77
May 3, 07:47 AM
Really good to see the update (finally)... but I am disappointed they didn't bring the 24" back :(
The 27" is too big, and the resolution on the 21.5 is laughable for an upgrade of this magnitude.
Still, quad core across the range is nice.
The 27" is too big, and the resolution on the 21.5 is laughable for an upgrade of this magnitude.
Still, quad core across the range is nice.
titatom
Apr 13, 02:38 PM
If this happens I might own a television once again ! :D
more...
heron88
Apr 4, 03:27 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5221/5590767671_8ebac16a35_b.jpg
---f/14---8"---ISO100---28mm---
---f/14---8"---ISO100---28mm---
kirk26
Jul 25, 09:44 AM
I can see you've never used one...How rude.:mad:
more...
arnop
Oct 31, 11:30 AM
Why the hell not ?! :)
BillyBobBongo
May 3, 07:43 AM
It doesn't even get above the fold on Apple's homepage.
The fold is an old concept...you sound like my boss! :p
The fold is an old concept...you sound like my boss! :p
more...
appleguy123
Apr 25, 04:49 PM
And forget about cheap sandwiches...you're paying double for lapdances!
But iBlue doesn't have to pay at all!!! :rolleyes:
What am I going to do? I've got chickens to raise!
But iBlue doesn't have to pay at all!!! :rolleyes:
What am I going to do? I've got chickens to raise!
bedifferent
Apr 12, 09:57 AM
Intel says that direct connection to both PCIe and the graphics processor is required for Thunderbolt, but I wonder just why it would not be possible to use a PCIe card for a "data only" connection to external TB storage devices and leave the video to the existing connections? It seems to me that there should be a sufficiently large market for such a card to warrant third party development. I don't think that anyone would be upset at having a second connector for their display...seeing as how they have one now...and would be very happy to have a data connection quicker than FW 800.
Intel denies that Apple have an exclusive use of Thunderbolt, but it does not seem as though the PC motherboard manufacturers are making much of an effort to let people know that they will be offering Thunderbolt native motherboards anytime soon.
Boo! I didn't know it "required" a connection between the GPU and PCIe. I don't see the reasoning behind a direct connection to the GPU, anyone (not an engineer here)? I also agree, that for the sake of data connectivity, a PCIe card would be a realistic expectation. I certainly wouldn't be bothered with another connection, especially if that connection would eventually be the primary connection to my external devices ("Light Peak"/"ThunderBolt" does allow for daisy chaining?).
Intel denies that Apple have an exclusive use of Thunderbolt, but it does not seem as though the PC motherboard manufacturers are making much of an effort to let people know that they will be offering Thunderbolt native motherboards anytime soon.
Boo! I didn't know it "required" a connection between the GPU and PCIe. I don't see the reasoning behind a direct connection to the GPU, anyone (not an engineer here)? I also agree, that for the sake of data connectivity, a PCIe card would be a realistic expectation. I certainly wouldn't be bothered with another connection, especially if that connection would eventually be the primary connection to my external devices ("Light Peak"/"ThunderBolt" does allow for daisy chaining?).
more...
A-Rock
Jan 30, 11:31 PM
Grabbed some albums:
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Time Flies... 1994-2009 - Oasis (Deluxe Edition)
My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy - Kanye West (Deluxe Edition)
all classics :)
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Time Flies... 1994-2009 - Oasis (Deluxe Edition)
My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy - Kanye West (Deluxe Edition)
all classics :)
imacken
Nov 13, 03:33 AM
It's available in the Canadian Store.
That's weird. On the web-site it says US only - coming soon to ROW.
That's weird. On the web-site it says US only - coming soon to ROW.
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
obeygiant
May 1, 10:07 PM
Good weekend for Obama. He got even with both Donald Trump and Osama bin Laden.
http://i55.tinypic.com/20tfo2b.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/20tfo2b.jpg
iJohnHenry
Mar 1, 10:44 AM
Andy Kaufman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Kaufman#Tony_Clifton), as Tony Clifton, did it first, and far better.
notjustjay
Apr 26, 02:16 PM
not everyone wants a dedicated home server that they load everything on and let it run 24 hours a day. We just have a MBA.... i'm not gonna load all my music on there and leave it plugged in 24 hours a day. Just not gonna happen.
Exactly. It's more than just the $5 for the app and the data cap/bandwidth issues. It is wear and tear on a machine that has to be left on 24/7. It is the hydro cost of running that machine 24/7 instead of turning it off when you go out (this alone may well add up to more than $20/year!) If you don't want your main machine on 24/7 then it is the cost of another Mac mini or NAS or other device to act as the server instead.
It is also wear and tear on your 2 TB drive that has to be on 24/7, as opposed to working more like a backup drive that's only activated occasionally to back up your music files. It is the hassle of ensuring AudioGalaxy and your server and your ISP internet connection are all up and running when you need them to be (dealing with power outages, internet outages, maintenance, restarts, software updates, etc.)
$20/year might well be worth it for the uptime and hydro considerations alone.
Exactly. It's more than just the $5 for the app and the data cap/bandwidth issues. It is wear and tear on a machine that has to be left on 24/7. It is the hydro cost of running that machine 24/7 instead of turning it off when you go out (this alone may well add up to more than $20/year!) If you don't want your main machine on 24/7 then it is the cost of another Mac mini or NAS or other device to act as the server instead.
It is also wear and tear on your 2 TB drive that has to be on 24/7, as opposed to working more like a backup drive that's only activated occasionally to back up your music files. It is the hassle of ensuring AudioGalaxy and your server and your ISP internet connection are all up and running when you need them to be (dealing with power outages, internet outages, maintenance, restarts, software updates, etc.)
$20/year might well be worth it for the uptime and hydro considerations alone.
hexonxonx
Apr 16, 02:56 AM
I love my AT&T iPhone 4 and 3GS. On the iPhone 4, upgrading to 4.3.1 was flawless with no problems. The 3GS started having battery drain. Within 6 hours, it would be at 60% with just a bit of usage. I would usually be at 60% after 24 hours. I downgraded to 4.1 where I was before. Nothing on 4.3.1 was worth upgrading to. I don't have a supported printer for air printing and for airshare, the only thing I can share back and forth to is my MBP.
Any battery problems on this latest update?
I have had a flawless experience with AT&T over the past few years and will remain with the next iPhone.
Any battery problems on this latest update?
I have had a flawless experience with AT&T over the past few years and will remain with the next iPhone.
KnightWRX
Apr 16, 07:07 AM
No one is pissing over google's work. It was a response to one of your s*****[censored] comments, here:
Don't remove the :rolleyes:, it indicates the sarcasm in that comment. I was pointing out to the guy the fallacy of his argument in diminishing Google's work that he was also diminishing Apple's work on OS X.
I believe both companies have a lot of merit for what they did. I'm not pro-anything or anti-anything here. The point of my comment was to say that Apple and Google put in a lot of effort into making their OSes.
Now you're arguing what exactly aside from just wanting to insult me ?
You replied to a person who was talking about ChromeOS being just a giant browser which is absolutely true.
Absolutely true ? When did Web browsers start to do process scheduling, user input, graphical sub-systems, GUI frameworks, hardware interaction, etc.. etc..
Chrome OS is much more than a browser, it's very much a OS who's desktop environnement happens to be a Web browser, rather than a file explorer like Finder.
Again, let's drop the Google hate. It has no place in this thread. Why do you insist on beating on them ? Leave the corporate politic between Steve and Eric (now Larry) and let's discuss OS X some.
Don't remove the :rolleyes:, it indicates the sarcasm in that comment. I was pointing out to the guy the fallacy of his argument in diminishing Google's work that he was also diminishing Apple's work on OS X.
I believe both companies have a lot of merit for what they did. I'm not pro-anything or anti-anything here. The point of my comment was to say that Apple and Google put in a lot of effort into making their OSes.
Now you're arguing what exactly aside from just wanting to insult me ?
You replied to a person who was talking about ChromeOS being just a giant browser which is absolutely true.
Absolutely true ? When did Web browsers start to do process scheduling, user input, graphical sub-systems, GUI frameworks, hardware interaction, etc.. etc..
Chrome OS is much more than a browser, it's very much a OS who's desktop environnement happens to be a Web browser, rather than a file explorer like Finder.
Again, let's drop the Google hate. It has no place in this thread. Why do you insist on beating on them ? Leave the corporate politic between Steve and Eric (now Larry) and let's discuss OS X some.
No comments:
Post a Comment