WildPalms
Oct 24, 05:23 PM
This is incorrect.
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".
The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment on the same device where Vista is already installed.
So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.
In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.
No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".
The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment on the same device where Vista is already installed.
So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.
In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.
No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.
The Maestro
Oct 24, 09:02 AM
my order says
'Allow 4 days to build your order.
Allow 3 - 7 business days for delivery. '
in regards to shipping times
'Allow 4 days to build your order.
Allow 3 - 7 business days for delivery. '
in regards to shipping times
kalsta
Apr 15, 09:57 AM
Dude,,...... you didn't get rid of the chin....
You can't mention iMac around here without someone saying.
I hope they get rid of the chin. :rolleyes::D
True enough. But if there was no chin, I may as well have drawn an iPad on a stick, and no one would be impressed by that. ;)
ps. Yes I think a touch screen mac is coming but it seriously needs to be a new product not an iMac. Also needs to be much much smaller and lighter like the iMac gets the Air Treatment with say 17 or 20inch screen. No Stand.
I'm not really sure what the point would be. If you lay a 17 or 20 inch Mac down on your lap, give it a touch screen, and modify the interface so it's more suited to the less precise input of fingers… haven't you just created a bigger iPad? (Not that a bigger iPad wouldn't have it's uses, but it wouldn't be a Mac, and I'd question whether it would warrant yet another 'marketing name'.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
You can't mention iMac around here without someone saying.
I hope they get rid of the chin. :rolleyes::D
True enough. But if there was no chin, I may as well have drawn an iPad on a stick, and no one would be impressed by that. ;)
ps. Yes I think a touch screen mac is coming but it seriously needs to be a new product not an iMac. Also needs to be much much smaller and lighter like the iMac gets the Air Treatment with say 17 or 20inch screen. No Stand.
I'm not really sure what the point would be. If you lay a 17 or 20 inch Mac down on your lap, give it a touch screen, and modify the interface so it's more suited to the less precise input of fingers… haven't you just created a bigger iPad? (Not that a bigger iPad wouldn't have it's uses, but it wouldn't be a Mac, and I'd question whether it would warrant yet another 'marketing name'.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
rdowns
Oct 19, 05:46 PM
Thanks for the chart...I always like to see stuff like this. But your 3Q and 4Q numbers for 2003 and 2004 looked a bit fishy, so I looked into it and made the corrections below for 2004. Don't know if there are any other errors.
Thanks. I'll have to go back through all the reports I have one day when I'm bored.
Thanks. I'll have to go back through all the reports I have one day when I'm bored.
Mrawr
Apr 14, 01:18 PM
I've just downloaded the update on mymiPhone and iPad and i noticed in the General Setings now there is a multitouch gestures button to enable this function. It suports 4 fingers up to show the app switcher, 4 fingers to the sides to switch apps and 5 fingers to the centre to go to the home screen.
It works great!
Can anyone else confirm this? How about on iPad?
It works great!
Can anyone else confirm this? How about on iPad?
trip1ex
Apr 11, 02:26 PM
TB at this stage will only be useful to a few people.
IT's really down the road when SSDs get bigger and cheaper and when TB is put into a MBA (without any other ports) that it will matter much more.
Right now? It's ahead of its time especially if there is a tb tax involved.
IT's really down the road when SSDs get bigger and cheaper and when TB is put into a MBA (without any other ports) that it will matter much more.
Right now? It's ahead of its time especially if there is a tb tax involved.
diegous79
May 3, 08:43 AM
Not sure if anyone noticed this but while trying to price one, I noticed that the 21" model can't be maxed to 16gb as their page says.... :mad:
netdog
Jul 12, 04:18 AM
You just demonstrated the risk of closed formats and DRM. Suppose a superior product does become available. That superior product would have hard time competing, since iPod-users are tied to FairPlay (if they have used iTunes that is).
That said: there has been rumors that Microsoft would make the songs the user has bought from iTunes available to "switchers" for free, eliminating the FairPlay-lock in (by replacing it with another lock-in).
Yes, I mentioned the switch for free rumours in my post.
As for using this as a critique of DRM, Apple and Microsoft will use DRM. The old rent-a-tune subscription model applied to WMAs will, no doubt, not be the only model offered by Microsoft. As for whether DRM is a good idea or not, while I hate it, the fact is that consumers are buying huge numbers of DRM-protected files, and our debates about the merits of DRM are just whistling in the wind.
That said: there has been rumors that Microsoft would make the songs the user has bought from iTunes available to "switchers" for free, eliminating the FairPlay-lock in (by replacing it with another lock-in).
Yes, I mentioned the switch for free rumours in my post.
As for using this as a critique of DRM, Apple and Microsoft will use DRM. The old rent-a-tune subscription model applied to WMAs will, no doubt, not be the only model offered by Microsoft. As for whether DRM is a good idea or not, while I hate it, the fact is that consumers are buying huge numbers of DRM-protected files, and our debates about the merits of DRM are just whistling in the wind.
nies
Apr 25, 11:54 PM
and going back to read the narrative... whats a gallapagos? apparently i discovered it but seem to not know what it is..
carlgo
Oct 1, 08:51 AM
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
SeaFox
Apr 24, 06:32 AM
I'd be surprised if this comes true. T-Mobile's network is not exactly up to par with AT&T and Verizon.
Yeah, T-Mobile needs to work harder if they want their network to drop calls as much as AT&T.
Yeah, T-Mobile needs to work harder if they want their network to drop calls as much as AT&T.
KnightWRX
Apr 17, 08:04 AM
What about a Magic Trackpad?
Trackpads and touch screens are quite different input devices. Touch screen input requires that you actually "touch" what you want to manipulate. With a trackpad, you don't have quite the precision to precisely put your finger on an object on screen, since the object is not displayed on the track pad.
It just doesn't translate that well. Trackpads still very much require cursors, which iOS's UI lacks.
Trackpads and touch screens are quite different input devices. Touch screen input requires that you actually "touch" what you want to manipulate. With a trackpad, you don't have quite the precision to precisely put your finger on an object on screen, since the object is not displayed on the track pad.
It just doesn't translate that well. Trackpads still very much require cursors, which iOS's UI lacks.
technicalFoozle
Apr 14, 07:09 AM
That's my guess.
Purchase apps and have them available for install without synchronization on ipad, ipod, iphone without plugging the device in.
Honestly, I don't think my version of it is correct but MobileMe is as good a guess as any other.
Purchase apps and have them available for install without synchronization on ipad, ipod, iphone without plugging the device in.
Honestly, I don't think my version of it is correct but MobileMe is as good a guess as any other.
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:35 AM
Dave,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
stevegmu
Jan 30, 05:36 PM
Let me correct myself... I didn't mean to say occupy, I meant that we have troops in US bases in over 200 countries.
Interesting, considering there are only 194 recognized countries on Earth. Which planet are the other 6 countries located on?
Interesting, considering there are only 194 recognized countries on Earth. Which planet are the other 6 countries located on?
SciFrog
Oct 30, 07:20 PM
-16 is better for Intel processors.
sanPietro98
Apr 12, 10:39 PM
http://gallery.me.com/pdibona/100093/IMG_2574/web.jpg
snebes
Apr 13, 07:33 PM
Anyone feel confident buying a white one given the problems they've had getting one made?
Haven't heard any issues with white iPads having color issues.... yet
Haven't heard any issues with white iPads having color issues.... yet
rasmasyean
May 1, 10:37 PM
Since he's dead doesn't this technically mean that the "War on Terror" is technically over?
No, now that we are bold about our "success" it's time to take out the terrorist in Iran.
No, now that we are bold about our "success" it's time to take out the terrorist in Iran.
kcmac
Apr 22, 05:28 PM
I don't mind the looks of it. I have the iPhone 4 and after getting the iPad 2 feel like the 4 is too boxy. Love the curved sides of the iPad 2.
Wondering where the antenna is on this mock up. Is it the entire back? What is the outline around the side view? A clear covering? Or just artwork?
Wondering where the antenna is on this mock up. Is it the entire back? What is the outline around the side view? A clear covering? Or just artwork?
kevin.rivers
Jul 28, 10:42 AM
How can you possibly make that statement - that no one is switching to Zune ( or will switch to )
Zune isn't out yet!!!
If you hated DRM would you switch to a Zune? It is common sense. MS is doing the same thing that Apple is. And people already hate the iPod... Besides you have nothing else to offer to this besides a play on words?
Zune isn't out yet!!!
If you hated DRM would you switch to a Zune? It is common sense. MS is doing the same thing that Apple is. And people already hate the iPod... Besides you have nothing else to offer to this besides a play on words?
bobber205
Jul 12, 06:16 PM
Ha ha... when I glanced at the RSS feed I thought it said "Page 3 Features?". I thought: "Why the heck would MacRumors add a 'Page 3'? Much of the 'Page 1' stuff never comes to pass, and they've got 'Page 2' for the even less substantiated stuff..."
:p
I thought the same thing. :p
:p
I thought the same thing. :p
shooterlv
Aug 15, 11:41 PM
Screenshot of Mail RSS
http://static.flickr.com/79/216605843_a6122c3d48.jpg
[Edited to add another image]
http://static.flickr.com/67/216611149_4b45ff407f.jpg
and of screensaver counting down to lock
http://static.flickr.com/85/216603134_6fb5838c20_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/79/216605843_a6122c3d48.jpg
[Edited to add another image]
http://static.flickr.com/67/216611149_4b45ff407f.jpg
and of screensaver counting down to lock
http://static.flickr.com/85/216603134_6fb5838c20_o.jpg
OliverOSX93
Apr 26, 09:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I would have thought they would have a 24 / 24.5 inch screen. If only to make it match the 13/15/17 screen sizes of the MBP.
I would have thought they would have a 24 / 24.5 inch screen. If only to make it match the 13/15/17 screen sizes of the MBP.
No comments:
Post a Comment