miles01110
Apr 16, 06:42 PM
You are essentially asking if you can restore your computer from a backup when you've never backed up your computer. The answer is obviously "no."
partyBoy
Dec 11, 02:25 AM
I tweeked the icons...
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee187/colombian_pride69/Geektool%20themes/Screenshot2010-12-11at.png
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee187/colombian_pride69/Geektool%20themes/Screenshot2010-12-11at.png
alphaone
Mar 6, 01:00 AM
Definitely won't be doing GPU folding on this guy. The forcegpu ati_r800 flag does let it work and it goes fast, about 1:40 per 1% on p5733 but the fan throttles up past 50% on the card and it is pretty noticeable (sounds like a little vacuum). And it steals about 12% of the available cpu power. Plus it burns a lot of electricity. I'll do my oneunit and get back to cpu only. I'll let you know how that goes later.
Micjose
Apr 17, 12:30 PM
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q283/zwodubber/desktop.jpg
Man! I really like this one... :D :cool:
Man! I really like this one... :D :cool:
more...
wrldwzrd89
Feb 18, 06:22 AM
I was just fooling around with GarageBand, and whipped up these 4 songs. 2 of them I've used in games I've created.
Battle (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Battle.mp3)
Battle 2 (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Battle_2.mp3)
Polyphonizer (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Polyphonizer.mp3)
Testing (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Testing.mp3)
Of the 4, Polyphonizer is my favorite. It got its name from the fact that it relies on mass polyphony to keep listeners' interest.
Battle (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Battle.mp3)
Battle 2 (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Battle_2.mp3)
Polyphonizer (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Polyphonizer.mp3)
Testing (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Testing.mp3)
Of the 4, Polyphonizer is my favorite. It got its name from the fact that it relies on mass polyphony to keep listeners' interest.
NoSmokingBandit
Oct 10, 08:55 AM
I havent posted mine here in a while.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/Desktops/Screenshot2010-10-10at95439AM.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/Desktops/Screenshot2010-10-10at95439AM.jpg
more...
BrianMojo
Nov 11, 12:05 PM
WRONG! FCP is definitely not the industry standard. It gained a lot of traction in market share from Avid but has since regressed its gains over the last several years.
Yeah, I was gonna say. When it comes to professionals Avid still reigns supreme (unfortunately, in my opinion).
Yeah, I was gonna say. When it comes to professionals Avid still reigns supreme (unfortunately, in my opinion).
tropicoola
Oct 10, 03:58 PM
http://uppix.net/f/4/d/bec03b07ab1c961dba038d8994c7dtt.jpg (http://uppix.net/f/4/d/bec03b07ab1c961dba038d8994c7d.html)
more...
JoeG4
Jan 18, 12:41 AM
I don't get why Americans like bigger cars.
So we could make you feel better about yourselves driving small cars.
More likely: In Europe and Asia, the cities were built before cars, so they have narrower streets. In the US, some big cities were built before cars, but most were built for wagon/car/whatever traffic and since there was so much empty space, they made more room for it.
I know, there is empty space in other countries. Got that. I also know that some people think we should live like sardines, but not having to worry about your neighbor's rowhouse catching on fire and burning yours down, or their filthy habits getting you sick is nice. It's also nice to not hear your neighbor flushing the toilet and/or what show they're watching on TV.
Yes, I understand if you live in a 350 year old building made out of 24" thick plaster/cement/adobe walls you won't hear your neighbor. OTOH, you probably don't have to worry about the ground shaking under you.. well, you might have to worry about the volcano nearby exploding into your house or something but.. that's different right?
Anyway, long story short, small cars fit small streets better.
In the US, small cars aren't a necessity, and since they're cheaper to make than big cars, they tend to be sold for those who want a new car but can't afford a bigger car. Aside from the 50s/50s/70s, I don't think size was really seen as a luxury thing - right now this country is choke full of people ashamed to be considered American that would love to have a tiny, really expensive European car to show how not stereotypical fat american they are XD
So we could make you feel better about yourselves driving small cars.
More likely: In Europe and Asia, the cities were built before cars, so they have narrower streets. In the US, some big cities were built before cars, but most were built for wagon/car/whatever traffic and since there was so much empty space, they made more room for it.
I know, there is empty space in other countries. Got that. I also know that some people think we should live like sardines, but not having to worry about your neighbor's rowhouse catching on fire and burning yours down, or their filthy habits getting you sick is nice. It's also nice to not hear your neighbor flushing the toilet and/or what show they're watching on TV.
Yes, I understand if you live in a 350 year old building made out of 24" thick plaster/cement/adobe walls you won't hear your neighbor. OTOH, you probably don't have to worry about the ground shaking under you.. well, you might have to worry about the volcano nearby exploding into your house or something but.. that's different right?
Anyway, long story short, small cars fit small streets better.
In the US, small cars aren't a necessity, and since they're cheaper to make than big cars, they tend to be sold for those who want a new car but can't afford a bigger car. Aside from the 50s/50s/70s, I don't think size was really seen as a luxury thing - right now this country is choke full of people ashamed to be considered American that would love to have a tiny, really expensive European car to show how not stereotypical fat american they are XD
iRachel
Jan 9, 05:01 PM
I don't really care about the Apple TV - its not something I see myself using at this point.
I like the iPhone, though I think its a tad pricey, but I wouldn't be in the market for one before early next year, anyway. I might consider getting one at that point.
I was disappointed that there was nothing for the Mac! I wanted to see iLife and iWork '07 and more importantly, hear/see some information about Leopard!
I like the iPhone, though I think its a tad pricey, but I wouldn't be in the market for one before early next year, anyway. I might consider getting one at that point.
I was disappointed that there was nothing for the Mac! I wanted to see iLife and iWork '07 and more importantly, hear/see some information about Leopard!
more...
eroxx
May 5, 03:34 PM
Aaaah thanks so much!
JDB1983
Dec 28, 12:38 PM
yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for windows run ah-so smoothly on macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (there is a world beyond the microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's old java, and many java apps require a very specific oracle jvm to run. There's .net. There's sharepoint. There's an ibm mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no os x drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with windows.)
enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, time machine is not an enterprise solution.
Tco? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (apple)? Huge fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out fail. (try getting support for os x leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for tiger or panther today. Then compare it to windows xp, an os from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on cupertino toys.)
it's much easier to integrate linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put mac os x boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like oracle and ibm actually use, sell and support linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large it department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a cto to bet the company's it future on nintendo wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the world health organization of the united nations, and it turned out to be impossible to integrate macs into their it environment. I had the only mac (a 20" core duo) in a world wide network because i was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then i quickly had to give up on os x and instead run windows on it in order to get my job as an it admin done and be able to use the it resources of the other who centers. Os x tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but windows vista and xp got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a mac that only runs windows. That's what you get for being an apple fanboy, which i admittedly was at that time.
Where i work now, two other people bought macs, and one of them has ordered windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out os x from his hard disk and replace it with windows. He's an engineer and not productive with os x, rather the opposite: Os x slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in apple land, i will now also move away from os x. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the apple hardware and their itunes store. If the web browser and itunes and maybe final cut studio, logic studio or the adobe creative suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then os x probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When apple brag about how cool it is to run windows in "boot camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run windows in virtualbox on linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support two operating systems to get one job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the mac still is not a full computing platform without microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case against migrating to mac os x.
qft
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (there is a world beyond the microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's old java, and many java apps require a very specific oracle jvm to run. There's .net. There's sharepoint. There's an ibm mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no os x drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with windows.)
enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, time machine is not an enterprise solution.
Tco? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (apple)? Huge fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out fail. (try getting support for os x leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for tiger or panther today. Then compare it to windows xp, an os from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on cupertino toys.)
it's much easier to integrate linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put mac os x boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like oracle and ibm actually use, sell and support linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large it department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a cto to bet the company's it future on nintendo wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the world health organization of the united nations, and it turned out to be impossible to integrate macs into their it environment. I had the only mac (a 20" core duo) in a world wide network because i was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then i quickly had to give up on os x and instead run windows on it in order to get my job as an it admin done and be able to use the it resources of the other who centers. Os x tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but windows vista and xp got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a mac that only runs windows. That's what you get for being an apple fanboy, which i admittedly was at that time.
Where i work now, two other people bought macs, and one of them has ordered windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out os x from his hard disk and replace it with windows. He's an engineer and not productive with os x, rather the opposite: Os x slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in apple land, i will now also move away from os x. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the apple hardware and their itunes store. If the web browser and itunes and maybe final cut studio, logic studio or the adobe creative suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then os x probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When apple brag about how cool it is to run windows in "boot camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run windows in virtualbox on linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support two operating systems to get one job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the mac still is not a full computing platform without microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case against migrating to mac os x.
qft
more...
AP_piano295
May 6, 11:20 AM
LOL, so it's both ok either way and wrong either way? No offense but I think you've reduced your position to one that doesn't really mean anything
No offence but I think your failing to see the disconnect between my personal position and my historical/political observations.
No offence but I think your failing to see the disconnect between my personal position and my historical/political observations.
iMacZealot
Nov 20, 10:06 PM
i don't see why so many people think iChat on a phone is so crazy or why it would need to be wifi.
i have a button on my Razr that is a direct connection to AIM so instant messaging from a phone isn't crazy, two of the people on my buddy list are on mobile phones.
iChat would be faster then texting and just cause this "second phone" would be very iChat based doesn't mean it wont be a phone. It sounds very sidekick like and the sidekick of course has AIM on it.
If they make a phone that will beat the Sidekick (shouldn't be too hard) then i'm in, i'd prefer that then just a a regular candy bar phone
But that is the problem. Instant messaging has been on phones for over two years. Why would they want to sell a phone on instant messaging if everybody pretty much already has a phone with IM already? There's no reason to buy it if they're going to advertise a feature people already have it on their phones.
And how exactly is IM faster than texting?
i have a button on my Razr that is a direct connection to AIM so instant messaging from a phone isn't crazy, two of the people on my buddy list are on mobile phones.
iChat would be faster then texting and just cause this "second phone" would be very iChat based doesn't mean it wont be a phone. It sounds very sidekick like and the sidekick of course has AIM on it.
If they make a phone that will beat the Sidekick (shouldn't be too hard) then i'm in, i'd prefer that then just a a regular candy bar phone
But that is the problem. Instant messaging has been on phones for over two years. Why would they want to sell a phone on instant messaging if everybody pretty much already has a phone with IM already? There's no reason to buy it if they're going to advertise a feature people already have it on their phones.
And how exactly is IM faster than texting?
more...
macgeek18
Dec 26, 12:06 AM
As of today, I worked a full 7 hours shift and an hour of over time. By making time and a half the first 7 hours and time and a half to the time and a half for the 1 hour the next paycheck will be REALLY nice. I think I shall buy an Apple TV.
:D
:D
AP_piano295
May 5, 10:12 PM
Care to give me some information? Wasn't Japan an ally to Germany? Didn't they attacked in Pearl Harbor?
Among other things we basically placed them under an oil embargo their need for natural resources and they're inability to attain them from us in a peaceful manner encouraged them to invade.
Also by your logic we are criminally involved in Iraq at the moment. Seeing as they were not aggressors against us, and we had no reason to invade.
Among other things we basically placed them under an oil embargo their need for natural resources and they're inability to attain them from us in a peaceful manner encouraged them to invade.
Also by your logic we are criminally involved in Iraq at the moment. Seeing as they were not aggressors against us, and we had no reason to invade.
more...
acfusion29
Mar 26, 10:42 PM
Obviously you have difficulty dealing with people that disagree with you.
Once again, I am not siding with the seller. His selling privileges will be rightfully revoked. He clearly violated eBay's terms of service.
But he doesn't belong in jail....at least not for this offense.
i wasn't attacking to you, i was replying to this comment:
I just can't stand people that automatically declare something illegal because they think it is wrong.
Once again, I am not siding with the seller. His selling privileges will be rightfully revoked. He clearly violated eBay's terms of service.
But he doesn't belong in jail....at least not for this offense.
i wasn't attacking to you, i was replying to this comment:
I just can't stand people that automatically declare something illegal because they think it is wrong.
SilentPanda
Apr 21, 10:37 AM
Looks like comment ratings. But honestly I have no clue!
BigPrince
Jan 14, 12:26 PM
Check page two next time :)
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/13/new-get-a-mac-ad-time-machine/
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/13/new-get-a-mac-ad-time-machine/
mdhwoods
Feb 10, 08:02 AM
Ya, switched over this morning. Says for incoming and outgoing so that is pretty good.
Cybernanga
Nov 3, 07:55 PM
Cocoa Gestures�
Single biggest timesaver/hand movement reducer I have ever installed on a computer, period (and I've been using 'em since the before there was a Mac).
Just curious, what kind of computer were you using before 1984?
Single biggest timesaver/hand movement reducer I have ever installed on a computer, period (and I've been using 'em since the before there was a Mac).
Just curious, what kind of computer were you using before 1984?
Stella
Apr 4, 11:17 AM
Thank you, Apple, for weeding out the companies whose business model depends on selling my information to junk-mailers.
This is the kind of 'crazy-Steve-Jobs-control' I can live with.
Do you have any proof that FT actually does sell email addresses?
Just because businesses wants your email doesn't equate to they'll sell your details...
This is the kind of 'crazy-Steve-Jobs-control' I can live with.
Do you have any proof that FT actually does sell email addresses?
Just because businesses wants your email doesn't equate to they'll sell your details...
Snowy_River
Oct 31, 01:39 PM
...Oooooooooh but what about people who travel or backpack for a long trip without a charging opportunity. Maybe they need more charge time? Does anyone listen to headphones while hiking? ...
They do have extra power packs for the various iPods. While they aren't out for the new Shuffle yet, I have little doubt that they will be coming. Also, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that it wasn't too difficult to rig something up on your own, if you're at least a little bit tech savvy.
They do have extra power packs for the various iPods. While they aren't out for the new Shuffle yet, I have little doubt that they will be coming. Also, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that it wasn't too difficult to rig something up on your own, if you're at least a little bit tech savvy.
Wicked1
Mar 27, 03:54 PM
I thought something was suspicious just looking at their feedback rating before reading their description. I guess that is what you get for dealing with someone with a cloudy past and not reading what you are bidding on or buying, that seller needs to be banned from eBay.
