Spectrum
Aug 29, 12:16 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
Full of Win
Apr 12, 10:18 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Blue Velvet
Sep 26, 01:35 AM
Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
MacRumors
Sep 12, 03:16 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
In a rare move, Apple provided a sneak peak of the long rumored Apple media center. Currently without a final product name, it has been codenamed iTV and has the apperance of a flattened Mac mini.
Providing various audio and video outputs, it is intended to be connected to a TV, communicating wirelessly with your Mac or PC and displaying a Front Row like interface for the content on your computer.
Key features:
� Built-in power supply (no power brick)
� USB, Ethernet and 802.11 wireless connectivity
� HDMI, optical audio, component video and RCA (phono) audio outputs
� Works with the Apple Remote
The 'iTV' is to be available in Q1 priced at $299.
In a rare move, Apple provided a sneak peak of the long rumored Apple media center. Currently without a final product name, it has been codenamed iTV and has the apperance of a flattened Mac mini.
Providing various audio and video outputs, it is intended to be connected to a TV, communicating wirelessly with your Mac or PC and displaying a Front Row like interface for the content on your computer.
Key features:
� Built-in power supply (no power brick)
� USB, Ethernet and 802.11 wireless connectivity
� HDMI, optical audio, component video and RCA (phono) audio outputs
� Works with the Apple Remote
The 'iTV' is to be available in Q1 priced at $299.
Caharin
Apr 8, 10:14 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 10:37 PM
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ????????
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
shaun319
Apr 14, 05:46 AM
screen maximizing is an annoyance on mac
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
slinger1968
Oct 26, 09:39 PM
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.I've seen this comment on numerous posts and it sounds like people haven't read Anand's review.
It's not very easy to get to the CPUs, nothing like a simple swap.
I've built loads of PCs in the last 12+ years and even I would be a little reluctant to rip apart a $2500 to $3000 Mac Pro like anand did to swap out the chips.
It's an easy swap for Apple in the manufacturing process, but not for the consumer.
Read the report. Apple doesn't want people to be able to upgrade their CPUs
It's not very easy to get to the CPUs, nothing like a simple swap.
I've built loads of PCs in the last 12+ years and even I would be a little reluctant to rip apart a $2500 to $3000 Mac Pro like anand did to swap out the chips.
It's an easy swap for Apple in the manufacturing process, but not for the consumer.
Read the report. Apple doesn't want people to be able to upgrade their CPUs
CaoCao
Mar 26, 08:37 PM
Poor archbishop Tomasi hasn't been able to accept that the public is increasingly appalled with his church's stance on sex and that the public is increasingly offended by his church's continuing attempts to impose its beliefs on the general public.
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 01:24 AM
I made a joke before about what the hell anyone would need with 8 cores, but the truth is that I've been doing so much simultaneous photo, PS/InD, video at work this past couple weeks that I'm constantly taxing the 2GHz dual G5 w/ 4.5GB of RAM.. I mean like grinding it to a halt. Same with my MacBook, and don't even get me started on my iMac G5 Rev C.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
bigandy
Sep 26, 04:29 AM
this will be fantastic for rendering stuff :D
Don't panic
Mar 15, 10:23 AM
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
i can't believe i am even answering this, and i am bewildered by the fact that you might actually be seriously thinking what you are writing.
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
i can't believe i am even answering this, and i am bewildered by the fact that you might actually be seriously thinking what you are writing.
anyway, even the worst case scenario -a complete meltdown of all four reactors- is not even remotely close to the apocalyptic pictures you have in mind.
'japan' is not going to 'blow up' or to be reduced to a barren wasteland forever.
in the worst case scenario (which is very unlikely to occur), a small area will be heavily contaminated and a larger area will be moderately or lightly contaminated.
tens or hundreds of people will get sick in the short term, and more would be at risk in the long term, a lot of people will have to evacuate to a safer distance from the reactor, and the economic cost of the clean up (and the recostruction in the tsunami-devastated areas) would be tremendous.
but how you go from there to "japan is history" is mindboggling.
vincenz
Apr 15, 11:05 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
Alienate? How so?
I like the name of the project. It's very optimistic.
Alienate? How so?
I like the name of the project. It's very optimistic.
Oneand0
Jun 24, 02:48 AM
Do a lot of travel around the U.S., about 25 trips a year. I have a Verizon phone with the US GOVT. and my cool Iphone. Let's just say that with every four or five dropped calls on Iphone, I get maybe 1 on the Verizon overall. Recently dropped a friend four times in a row using IPHONE at home, and I have no landline phone. As much as I like Apple and the Iphone, this DROID X is too beautiful of a screen for me to avoid July 15th, since I watch so many movies during travel on my iphone, not to mention the better service with Verizon.
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
iStudentUK
Mar 13, 01:55 PM
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 11:20 PM
It honestly depends on if those processors are going to fully saturate the FSB. If the FSB has a high enough data transfer rate then it shouldn't matter much that the cross talk between processors is over the FSB and not onboard via shard cache.
Thanks Eldorian, I appreciate the insight. :cool: Oh, and I think you meant "shared cache", although I honestly don't mind having cache named after me... ;) :D
Thanks Eldorian, I appreciate the insight. :cool: Oh, and I think you meant "shared cache", although I honestly don't mind having cache named after me... ;) :D
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:22 PM
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
goobot
Apr 20, 06:08 PM
did anyone ask anything about hspa+?
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
Piggie
Apr 9, 06:53 PM
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
Apple 26.2
Apr 15, 04:09 PM
Whatever differences exist, you'll get used to them.
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:15 PM
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
Of course you never used that particular phrase. You did claim that you couldn't take an Adobe "pro" seriously. What particular industry do you work in where that's the case?
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
Of course you never used that particular phrase. You did claim that you couldn't take an Adobe "pro" seriously. What particular industry do you work in where that's the case?
Mac.World
Apr 24, 02:29 AM
Religion and politics. Two things never to be discussed on forums. Well that and iOS vs Android. :D
