rovex
Apr 28, 04:41 PM
Of course, another possibility is that the black iPhone has become thinner due to abrasion from everyday use. :p
graphite13
Nov 3, 07:22 PM
The nicest thing about a Cocoa app is that it looks and behaves like every other Cocoa app. There is a sort of consistency in behavior. Things that look almost like a Cocoa app, but don't quite behave that way annoy me.
But what'll make VMware faster is the better support for multi-core processors and allowing the VM to take advantage of that.
But what'll make VMware faster is the better support for multi-core processors and allowing the VM to take advantage of that.
MorphingDragon
Apr 23, 08:54 AM
I consider lack of hardware recalls unethical. They always try to hoard as much money as they can.
snip
I don't think those are really ethical issues. More like a corporate form of...
http://leftwingconspiracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/motivator5743116.jpg
It's something also not exclusive to Apple.
snip
I don't think those are really ethical issues. More like a corporate form of...
http://leftwingconspiracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/motivator5743116.jpg
It's something also not exclusive to Apple.
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.
bousozoku
Jul 10, 09:19 PM
I'm with KookAid, I find that the Inspector is far more time consuming than a well laid out Icon Bar with drop boxes. Maybe it's because I've been using Microsoft Office forever. But I have given Pages a serious try and I find that I really like it, except for it's lacking AutoCorrection and Inspector.
Randy
I'll take my Inspector over extra tool bars, unless someone provides contextual tool bars, something I haven't seen since my desktop publishing software Calamus SL on Atari ST. A lot of my software uses an inspector dialog of some kind and I'm pleased to have that instead of 3 or 4 or 15 tool bars, which take up more room. It's tough when the tool bars take more room than the text.
Maybe they'll even offer ground-breaking features like bi-directional text editing :rolleyes:
Seriously, if Apple wants to compete in the word processing field, they need to start addressing people around the world, not just those who they consider guranteed target audience.
Tri-directional would be even better. You have to spend huge amounts of money to get RLTB (right to left, top to bottom) word processing and page layout in an international package.
Randy
I'll take my Inspector over extra tool bars, unless someone provides contextual tool bars, something I haven't seen since my desktop publishing software Calamus SL on Atari ST. A lot of my software uses an inspector dialog of some kind and I'm pleased to have that instead of 3 or 4 or 15 tool bars, which take up more room. It's tough when the tool bars take more room than the text.
Maybe they'll even offer ground-breaking features like bi-directional text editing :rolleyes:
Seriously, if Apple wants to compete in the word processing field, they need to start addressing people around the world, not just those who they consider guranteed target audience.
Tri-directional would be even better. You have to spend huge amounts of money to get RLTB (right to left, top to bottom) word processing and page layout in an international package.
tny
Oct 6, 04:23 PM
You are assuming that the amount of spectrum available will never change. There's a reason they just shut off analog TV. Yes, spectrum is a finite resource, but they're shifting more to mobile voice/data very soon.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
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.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
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.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
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.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
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.
Plutonius
Apr 17, 08:31 PM
Maybe you could reach out to Nies And ucfgrad93 to see if they would like to play in this game. hopefully that simple game I ran got us some lifelong new players. :D
Read post #3 in this thread :)
Read post #3 in this thread :)
appleguy123
Apr 27, 04:54 PM
Very odd not to vote for the next highest vote getter to save yourself. Even if he is a fellow wolf.
In this game there is a kamikaze and a infectious wolf. Strategy plays a part when they can control who gets lynched.
In this game there is a kamikaze and a infectious wolf. Strategy plays a part when they can control who gets lynched.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 22, 08:11 PM
Redesign that quick? But than again, a delay till September might be the reason. Who know, sure looks bad ass though.
well lets consider the long list of bad press and problems in the iPhone 4 design. For example the your holding it wrong and piss poor lay out of the antenna. Glass back breaking all the time. I think they wanted to get off that before it got really out of hand. Might as well end it while they have the chance. Also could be the hardware update was going to be well pretty limited so they make the outside chance so people jump to buy a new one. They know Apple fanboys like to show off they have the lastest and greatest so they make it impossible for them to make it look like the could at a glance (for example 3G and 3GS. Unless you saw the back you could never tell)
There is no way it could be that thin.
It could be. The curved edges give it an optical illusion to look thinner than it really is. It is a cheating trick
I hope it's not drastically thinner and lighter. The 4 at the minute is just right, nice to hold feels right.
Maybe It's just my man handling sausage fingers but I wouldn't like to see it similar to the iPod touch.
Yeah there is a limit before you become too small. At a certain point you just can not make it any thinner and lighter and still have it conformable to use.
The iPhone 4 had just the right thickness. Tapering everything to a weak point is bad engineering.
And when has Apple followed good engineering design. They rather look pretty than listen to their engineers and tell them to deal with it. I believe their are multiple reports of Apple own engineers speaking out saying they told them that the design of the iPhone 4 Antenna was bad idea but instead they were told to deal with it and do it. Nothing the engineers could do about it. Apple choose to make their phones look pretty instead of function. Apple is a Form over function company.
Looks top-heavy and tough to hold. Not going to happen.
Top heavy is not really a big issue with something that small and light.
well lets consider the long list of bad press and problems in the iPhone 4 design. For example the your holding it wrong and piss poor lay out of the antenna. Glass back breaking all the time. I think they wanted to get off that before it got really out of hand. Might as well end it while they have the chance. Also could be the hardware update was going to be well pretty limited so they make the outside chance so people jump to buy a new one. They know Apple fanboys like to show off they have the lastest and greatest so they make it impossible for them to make it look like the could at a glance (for example 3G and 3GS. Unless you saw the back you could never tell)
There is no way it could be that thin.
It could be. The curved edges give it an optical illusion to look thinner than it really is. It is a cheating trick
I hope it's not drastically thinner and lighter. The 4 at the minute is just right, nice to hold feels right.
Maybe It's just my man handling sausage fingers but I wouldn't like to see it similar to the iPod touch.
Yeah there is a limit before you become too small. At a certain point you just can not make it any thinner and lighter and still have it conformable to use.
The iPhone 4 had just the right thickness. Tapering everything to a weak point is bad engineering.
And when has Apple followed good engineering design. They rather look pretty than listen to their engineers and tell them to deal with it. I believe their are multiple reports of Apple own engineers speaking out saying they told them that the design of the iPhone 4 Antenna was bad idea but instead they were told to deal with it and do it. Nothing the engineers could do about it. Apple choose to make their phones look pretty instead of function. Apple is a Form over function company.
Looks top-heavy and tough to hold. Not going to happen.
Top heavy is not really a big issue with something that small and light.
dakwar
Mar 29, 12:38 PM
Does anybody else see the 9.6 inside the apple?
Sept. 6th?
Whatever it means, it's interesting.
I see an itunes logo in the leaf too. Perhaps they are by design.
Sept. 6th?
Whatever it means, it's interesting.
I see an itunes logo in the leaf too. Perhaps they are by design.
gwynne
Jun 9, 12:28 PM
Mom blaming the kid for her own screwup, IMHO.
whooleytoo
Apr 14, 11:06 AM
On another note - wouldn't you hate to be an Apple content developer? You're working hard, just finishing up on a new piece of code... hoping there aren't any errors.
...
[mDeviceList addObject @"ix.Mac.MarketingName"];
...
You put it live, relax, sit back, check out some RSS feeds for a break. The first item:
"What is ix.Mac.MarketingName and what does it mean for Apple's future plans?" Aiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!
...
[mDeviceList addObject @"ix.Mac.MarketingName"];
...
You put it live, relax, sit back, check out some RSS feeds for a break. The first item:
"What is ix.Mac.MarketingName and what does it mean for Apple's future plans?" Aiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!
dXTC
Jan 12, 10:25 AM
...
Oh and I do have a hard time believing that she ate as much as that article claims, at least in one sitting. Her stomach would surely burst! :eek:
It's easy in terms of the physics behind it. Consume less than you burn, you lose weight. However, there's something psychological behind the urge to eat. In some cases it would be like telling an alcoholic that it's easy, just stop drinking. There are also some studies and theories which have pointed out that some people don't get the necessary signals to indicate that they are full. So it's simple but it's not. (if you know what I mean.)
Have you ever seen a "professional eating" contest? The human digestive system can do rather amazing things, especially if it's been conditioned over a period of years, which is definitely true in this woman's case. The "sitting" may be 2 to 3 hours, with a bathroom break so that she can make room in her colon for the "next wave", but yeah, it's possible, especially with light yet calorie-dense foods like snack cakes, and high-calorie drinks like Kool-Aid to wash it down/through.
Psychological factors? You betcha. Donna's admitted to being a feedee, and in the vast majority of feeder/feedee relationships, there's a codependence factor.
Oh and I do have a hard time believing that she ate as much as that article claims, at least in one sitting. Her stomach would surely burst! :eek:
It's easy in terms of the physics behind it. Consume less than you burn, you lose weight. However, there's something psychological behind the urge to eat. In some cases it would be like telling an alcoholic that it's easy, just stop drinking. There are also some studies and theories which have pointed out that some people don't get the necessary signals to indicate that they are full. So it's simple but it's not. (if you know what I mean.)
Have you ever seen a "professional eating" contest? The human digestive system can do rather amazing things, especially if it's been conditioned over a period of years, which is definitely true in this woman's case. The "sitting" may be 2 to 3 hours, with a bathroom break so that she can make room in her colon for the "next wave", but yeah, it's possible, especially with light yet calorie-dense foods like snack cakes, and high-calorie drinks like Kool-Aid to wash it down/through.
Psychological factors? You betcha. Donna's admitted to being a feedee, and in the vast majority of feeder/feedee relationships, there's a codependence factor.
ciTiger
Apr 14, 01:11 PM
Any baseband update on this?
CFreymarc
Apr 28, 05:13 PM
Sounds like a "who cares?" kind of thing, but that's actually kind of a big deal if it creates case fragmentation. Not good. Hopefully inaccurate.
I don't know what is more pathetic, the fact they reported on this or the fact that they would think it was the same thickness and a total lack of material science knowledge.
I don't know what is more pathetic, the fact they reported on this or the fact that they would think it was the same thickness and a total lack of material science knowledge.
currentinterest
Apr 22, 07:15 PM
Whatever the design, it will look and feel beautiful when held in one's hand. Thinner is just about guaranteed. A dual core A5 is a near certainty. A metal back is likely. Somewhat larger display is probable. A rock'n iOS 5 is a lock.
Mord
Apr 25, 11:02 AM
In all ways except plumbing, she's a woman.
Are you mad enough to join in the beat down?
Not that I don't appreciate your sentiment, but her pluming has been reported as female (unless you mean a womb?). Though yes, even if it wasn't it wouldn't change the fact that she's a woman
People seem to be making all kinds of assumptions about this girl they've never met, it's ridiculous.
Are you mad enough to join in the beat down?
Not that I don't appreciate your sentiment, but her pluming has been reported as female (unless you mean a womb?). Though yes, even if it wasn't it wouldn't change the fact that she's a woman
People seem to be making all kinds of assumptions about this girl they've never met, it's ridiculous.
OceanView
Mar 16, 11:07 AM
Would you be willing to sell it? Since you would have to wait in line to exchange anyways?
I have a friend that is REALLY looking for a 32 gig white one. He leaves back to Arizona in a couple days, it would mean a lot if you considered it.
I just posted this so if no one has a trade for me I may do it.
Check with me later
I have a friend that is REALLY looking for a 32 gig white one. He leaves back to Arizona in a couple days, it would mean a lot if you considered it.
I just posted this so if no one has a trade for me I may do it.
Check with me later
simon-says
May 3, 11:53 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)
Kinda funny one of my lines just had it's eligibility for upgrade moved up nearly 5 months. Late September to next week, May 9th.
Kinda funny one of my lines just had it's eligibility for upgrade moved up nearly 5 months. Late September to next week, May 9th.
ohaithar
Sep 16, 10:51 PM
http://soleservice.no/sitefiles/site18/shop/vans-classic-slip-on42.jpg
http://www.thechocolatereview.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mars-milk-chocolate-mms.jpg
And my gf bought me this flannel
http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/75/6/AAAAAre1OSkAAAAAAHVrGw.jpg?v=1191496891000
http://www.thechocolatereview.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mars-milk-chocolate-mms.jpg
And my gf bought me this flannel
http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/75/6/AAAAAre1OSkAAAAAAHVrGw.jpg?v=1191496891000
KnightWRX
Apr 16, 06:42 AM
Apple didn't buy iOS/OS X. They created it from scratch using components from UNIX/NeXTSTEP. Simple.
First, OS X is very much like the last versions of NeXTSTEP was, aside from Quartz/Appkit frameworks and GUI layer. Foundation is basically what was shipping in the 90s, the kernel/BSD userland, etc...
Apple has done a lot of work on it, and I've said so in my posts several times. I'm not diminishing their work in anyway. Again, I'm simply stating that pissing over Google because they "acquired" and used "open source" is quick disingenuous in the face of Apple having done the same for both their flagship OSes.
It's great that Google bought Android but there's a very few things google have done on their own.
How do you know ? You saw Android in 2005 ? You can seriously compare what Andy's company made back then to what is actually shipping now ? The evolution from Android 1.0 to 2.3/3.0 is quite astounding by itself, who knows what went on between 2005 and version 1.0 that shipped in late 2009.
Why even attempt to diminish the work ? Apple does the same acquisition, they use open source projects to quicken development. The histories are similar, the goals are similar. Why hate Google over it, and why do you think it doesn't also reflect on Apple when you do ?
I will leave the rest of your post out and just report it to the mods instead. I suggest editing your post to remove your clear lack of respect. If you want to discuss the merits of each at the fine detail, I don't think this is the thread for it. Again, let's drop the Google hate and talk OS X instead.
First, OS X is very much like the last versions of NeXTSTEP was, aside from Quartz/Appkit frameworks and GUI layer. Foundation is basically what was shipping in the 90s, the kernel/BSD userland, etc...
Apple has done a lot of work on it, and I've said so in my posts several times. I'm not diminishing their work in anyway. Again, I'm simply stating that pissing over Google because they "acquired" and used "open source" is quick disingenuous in the face of Apple having done the same for both their flagship OSes.
It's great that Google bought Android but there's a very few things google have done on their own.
How do you know ? You saw Android in 2005 ? You can seriously compare what Andy's company made back then to what is actually shipping now ? The evolution from Android 1.0 to 2.3/3.0 is quite astounding by itself, who knows what went on between 2005 and version 1.0 that shipped in late 2009.
Why even attempt to diminish the work ? Apple does the same acquisition, they use open source projects to quicken development. The histories are similar, the goals are similar. Why hate Google over it, and why do you think it doesn't also reflect on Apple when you do ?
I will leave the rest of your post out and just report it to the mods instead. I suggest editing your post to remove your clear lack of respect. If you want to discuss the merits of each at the fine detail, I don't think this is the thread for it. Again, let's drop the Google hate and talk OS X instead.
Mac-Addict
Oct 24, 08:59 AM
Cheers - I suspected as much.
Looking forward to replacing it next year tho' - by then under �1500 is going to go along way - plus my wife qualifies for a discount because she works for the NHS.
Iain
Are you joking! You can get a discount for working at NHS?! Maybe I should consider a job in medicine!
Looking forward to replacing it next year tho' - by then under �1500 is going to go along way - plus my wife qualifies for a discount because she works for the NHS.
Iain
Are you joking! You can get a discount for working at NHS?! Maybe I should consider a job in medicine!
krzyglue
Apr 16, 08:04 PM
Then what were you trying to prove?
All the browsers do it. ChromeOS is just a browser for a normal consumer.
What were you actually trying to prove? What was your point? Sure you can ignore my comments if you dont have an answer. Fair enough.
Uhh for starters, Safari.app doesn't.
I can't tell you how much of ChromeOS is original Google code, but it is a full-fledged Linux operating system, with a full window manager (X11 I presume).
Calling it just a browser is a bit disingenuous.
On-topic: I quite like the overall new UI, suddenly makes what I'm looking at right new (10.6) feel dated. :(
All the browsers do it. ChromeOS is just a browser for a normal consumer.
What were you actually trying to prove? What was your point? Sure you can ignore my comments if you dont have an answer. Fair enough.
Uhh for starters, Safari.app doesn't.
I can't tell you how much of ChromeOS is original Google code, but it is a full-fledged Linux operating system, with a full window manager (X11 I presume).
Calling it just a browser is a bit disingenuous.
On-topic: I quite like the overall new UI, suddenly makes what I'm looking at right new (10.6) feel dated. :(
TwoSocEmBoppers
Mar 15, 11:07 AM
Brea all sold out.
I got 32gb Verizon white ticket. Not the one I wanted but my plan is to purchase and then sell or exchange.
I got 32gb Verizon white ticket. Not the one I wanted but my plan is to purchase and then sell or exchange.
No comments:
Post a Comment