manu chao
Apr 25, 01:49 PM
Ah, the perfect storm! A (probable) bug that does not clip the data the way Google does it,
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
And Google occasionally stores random data from any unsecured WiFi network its StreetView cars come by.
I now there were rumblings about government investigations into Google's data grab (which was transmitted and stored onto Google's computers) but was there also a lawsuit?
Not that Apple should not have fixed this presumed bug when it first was reported last year. Either nobody at Apple was really paying attention to what other people managed to extract in terms of 'forensic information' or they were not organised (or motivated) enough to get fix done. I cannot help myself but thinking that a scenario in which Apple knew about this but decided to fix it only with iOS 5 is not that unlikely.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
And Google occasionally stores random data from any unsecured WiFi network its StreetView cars come by.
I now there were rumblings about government investigations into Google's data grab (which was transmitted and stored onto Google's computers) but was there also a lawsuit?
Not that Apple should not have fixed this presumed bug when it first was reported last year. Either nobody at Apple was really paying attention to what other people managed to extract in terms of 'forensic information' or they were not organised (or motivated) enough to get fix done. I cannot help myself but thinking that a scenario in which Apple knew about this but decided to fix it only with iOS 5 is not that unlikely.
.a
Oct 15, 02:15 PM
... hmmm ... i just ordered a mac pro quad 3ghz ... 8 cores would be somehow nicer ;)
.a
.a
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
vgermax
Jul 14, 03:02 PM
It would be unlikely that Apple wouldn't utilize the highest clocked Xeons available. Also, quad configurations should be present in more than just the top-end unit as that is one of the main advantages of going with the Woodcrest versus Conroe, that and a higher default FSB.
The video card configurations are also previous generation. I don't know for certain, but it seems the PCIe configuration isn't consistent with the information available on the i5000X. The standard Intel design is 1 x16, 2 x4 (with x8 slots) for a total of 24 lanes, not 16 or 32 as might be interpreted from the "spec" sheet.
It might also be reasonable to expect an optional RAID configuration as a RAID controller is built-in to the southbridge.
The video card configurations are also previous generation. I don't know for certain, but it seems the PCIe configuration isn't consistent with the information available on the i5000X. The standard Intel design is 1 x16, 2 x4 (with x8 slots) for a total of 24 lanes, not 16 or 32 as might be interpreted from the "spec" sheet.
It might also be reasonable to expect an optional RAID configuration as a RAID controller is built-in to the southbridge.
Full of Win
Apr 27, 07:59 AM
This is a lie
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location,
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location. :mad: Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
At least our overlord will now, I hope, stop collecting location data when location services are turned off. It's a disgrace that it took a media storm to shame them into action.
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location,
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location. :mad: Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
At least our overlord will now, I hope, stop collecting location data when location services are turned off. It's a disgrace that it took a media storm to shame them into action.
katyoshi
Apr 7, 01:18 AM
This is why I waited for them to update the C2D first before purchasing. I will be buying the top 13". :rolleyes:
Rafterman
Apr 27, 08:12 AM
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
Its not about being a criminal or paranoid. This data is for the sole purpose of marketers to sell us crap.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
It reminds me of a line from Futurama:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
Its not about being a criminal or paranoid. This data is for the sole purpose of marketers to sell us crap.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
It reminds me of a line from Futurama:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
Koadoc
Nov 29, 08:27 AM
Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:
mr.steevo
Apr 28, 04:51 PM
This thread is Still rattling on about this?
The Titanic is still sinking...
The Titanic is still sinking...
FlameofAnor
Apr 7, 11:33 PM
I was in Best Buy the other day and they had a stack of 64GB WiFi iPad 2's on the counter, and a salesman was looking for the key to lock them away.
I asked him if these were available for sale, and he said they were all spoken for...... now, I wonder if that was really the case.
I asked him if these were available for sale, and he said they were all spoken for...... now, I wonder if that was really the case.
freeny
Aug 11, 02:06 PM
If Apple pick a carrier, I hope is not Cingular. But from past situations, that's very likely.
All carriers suck in one way or another. If you are unhappy with one you just switch to another. There is a constant migration from carrier to carrier because of this...
The carriers dont give a crap if you leave them because there is always a group of unhappy consumers who hate the competitor and are ready to move to their service.
This is why it takes forever to cancell a cellular account, they will try as hard as possible to not let you or talk you out of it. Its their only ammunition. My wife and I spent 2 hours on the phone with Sprint last week trying to cancel our extra phone we usually give our nanny. They were giving the most rediculous excuses as to why we shoud keep it when we no longer had any use for it. They wouldnt take no for an answer. It wasnt until we threatend to cancel all three of our accounts that they "graciously" cancelled the account.
This is also why there are such high cancelation fees. apparently people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to get away from any of the providers...
Bottom line; it doesnt matter what provider it would be, youll be screwed anyway.
All carriers suck in one way or another. If you are unhappy with one you just switch to another. There is a constant migration from carrier to carrier because of this...
The carriers dont give a crap if you leave them because there is always a group of unhappy consumers who hate the competitor and are ready to move to their service.
This is why it takes forever to cancell a cellular account, they will try as hard as possible to not let you or talk you out of it. Its their only ammunition. My wife and I spent 2 hours on the phone with Sprint last week trying to cancel our extra phone we usually give our nanny. They were giving the most rediculous excuses as to why we shoud keep it when we no longer had any use for it. They wouldnt take no for an answer. It wasnt until we threatend to cancel all three of our accounts that they "graciously" cancelled the account.
This is also why there are such high cancelation fees. apparently people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to get away from any of the providers...
Bottom line; it doesnt matter what provider it would be, youll be screwed anyway.
iliketyla
Mar 31, 07:05 PM
Precisely. I've been using HTC Android phones concurrently with my iPhones since I have multiple lines. I happen to like both platforms.
What the Android haters here fail to realize, is that they cannot act like adults and say I like this about my iPhone far better than Android.
Nooooo. They've got to preface it with something derogatory like "crappy Android" or worse. It shows their immaturity and inability to act intelligent. They reduce themselves to childish dolts. Idiots at best.
Maybe we can start a trend here!
As a former iPhone user who switched to Android and has been happy ever since, I will say that I was very happy with my iPhone, but my Android phone offers features that I couldn't imagine living without now.
Both iOS and Android are very nice operating systems, with their own strengths and weaknesses.
For me, Android works.
What the Android haters here fail to realize, is that they cannot act like adults and say I like this about my iPhone far better than Android.
Nooooo. They've got to preface it with something derogatory like "crappy Android" or worse. It shows their immaturity and inability to act intelligent. They reduce themselves to childish dolts. Idiots at best.
Maybe we can start a trend here!
As a former iPhone user who switched to Android and has been happy ever since, I will say that I was very happy with my iPhone, but my Android phone offers features that I couldn't imagine living without now.
Both iOS and Android are very nice operating systems, with their own strengths and weaknesses.
For me, Android works.
ValSalva
Apr 6, 11:10 AM
I still don't think this means new MacBook Airs in June. Can anyone really see Apple releasing new hardware before Lion is released?
Dan==
Jul 31, 12:35 PM
I did see your earlier design, actually. I had though that it was meant to be the same footprint as the Mac Mini. Seeing it again, I can see that I was mistaken. By comparison, my design is 10"W x 11"D x 4"H. I think to bring it down to the MP 8.1"W, it would have to be made taller, to be reasonable.
Yes, mine's about 5" high, which is tall enough so it would probably need some low hand grips or something. I'm not an engineer for these things, so I'm not even sure it would fit everything, but it looks like it might.
Also, in the vein of quibbling, I think that the perforated look of the MP allows for much better cooling, and therefore hotter components, such as extra boards, faster processors, higher-end GPU, etc. That's the reason I went with it... :)
Perforation only might help cooling. I've heard getting cool air on the parts in question is the most important, and internal flow may actually be better served with a mostly (obviously not completely) closed case design. (I'm probably wrong though in my recollection.)
Maybe now I should draw a scene with the Mac++, a keyboard, a mouse, and an ACD. What do you think?
Sure, I'd love to see some more pretty pictures of what we're dreaming about. It's a little like holding a lottery ticket in your hand, waiting for the numbers to be drawn, visualizing what you're going to buy with the winnings. :-)
-Dan
Yes, mine's about 5" high, which is tall enough so it would probably need some low hand grips or something. I'm not an engineer for these things, so I'm not even sure it would fit everything, but it looks like it might.
Also, in the vein of quibbling, I think that the perforated look of the MP allows for much better cooling, and therefore hotter components, such as extra boards, faster processors, higher-end GPU, etc. That's the reason I went with it... :)
Perforation only might help cooling. I've heard getting cool air on the parts in question is the most important, and internal flow may actually be better served with a mostly (obviously not completely) closed case design. (I'm probably wrong though in my recollection.)
Maybe now I should draw a scene with the Mac++, a keyboard, a mouse, and an ACD. What do you think?
Sure, I'd love to see some more pretty pictures of what we're dreaming about. It's a little like holding a lottery ticket in your hand, waiting for the numbers to be drawn, visualizing what you're going to buy with the winnings. :-)
-Dan
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
Captainobvvious
Apr 8, 06:52 AM
I don't know if anyone has explained Best Buy's actions at all and why they would hold back on selling stock the have yet.
I run a branch for a construction supply company and am judged based on daily and monthly goals.
It doesn't matter if I do three times my monthly goal this month if I don't hit goal at all next month. It doesn't make sense but it is the way business works. I have held orders that come in at the end of the month for the beginning of the next if I have already hit this month's goal so that I get a head start on next month's.
For the manager at Best Buy he probably felt that it served him better to the corporate big wigs if he hit his goal every day rather than pass his goal one day and not reach it the next.
Is it best for the COMPANY or for the CONSUMER? No... But in this world of sales and numbers managers tend to do what will make their bosses happy, which is to make sure that when they check the numbers on the spreadsheet every day they hit their numbers and don't get yelled at.
I run a branch for a construction supply company and am judged based on daily and monthly goals.
It doesn't matter if I do three times my monthly goal this month if I don't hit goal at all next month. It doesn't make sense but it is the way business works. I have held orders that come in at the end of the month for the beginning of the next if I have already hit this month's goal so that I get a head start on next month's.
For the manager at Best Buy he probably felt that it served him better to the corporate big wigs if he hit his goal every day rather than pass his goal one day and not reach it the next.
Is it best for the COMPANY or for the CONSUMER? No... But in this world of sales and numbers managers tend to do what will make their bosses happy, which is to make sure that when they check the numbers on the spreadsheet every day they hit their numbers and don't get yelled at.
Bilbo63
Apr 19, 06:44 PM
Which launched 6 months after the original iPhone...and was displayed in February of 2007 with an entirely different interface.
The point is no one will ever confuse this with Apple's iPhone... But what Samsung is doing now is another story.
If you look at each item that Apple takes exception with individually it seems silly, but when you put them all together in a single device it's a twin to the iPhone... An iClone.:rolleyes:
The point is no one will ever confuse this with Apple's iPhone... But what Samsung is doing now is another story.
If you look at each item that Apple takes exception with individually it seems silly, but when you put them all together in a single device it's a twin to the iPhone... An iClone.:rolleyes:
yoak
Apr 11, 03:59 PM
For the past three years, Apple's decisions in the professional market have been a bag of fail.
Anyone else starting to get a sinking feeling?
I don�t. Why would they even bother with a new version of FCS.
I also think Thunderbolt is an indication that Apple are thinking of the pro segment.
I do agree they have focused too much (from my perspective, probably not from the stockholders) on iDevices lately, but I don�t think they will abandon the pro market
Anyone else starting to get a sinking feeling?
I don�t. Why would they even bother with a new version of FCS.
I also think Thunderbolt is an indication that Apple are thinking of the pro segment.
I do agree they have focused too much (from my perspective, probably not from the stockholders) on iDevices lately, but I don�t think they will abandon the pro market
povman
Aug 7, 05:46 PM
From Vista Help:
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
from your description, the 'restore previous files' thing is more like backup&restore
If apple really is using zfs in leopard, then time machine is going to be a lot more than just saving files and restoring them.... It's more like 'hey we got some extra disk space. instead of overwriting this file, lets write it somewhere else so the old version is still there :D'
i.e. ALL versions of all files are saved until you run out of space, then you start to lose old stuff. Well i guess there might be some modifications so it only applies to certain files or something...
i do hope they lose the space stars background on it though... replace it with a rotating spiral and i'd be happy :D
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
from your description, the 'restore previous files' thing is more like backup&restore
If apple really is using zfs in leopard, then time machine is going to be a lot more than just saving files and restoring them.... It's more like 'hey we got some extra disk space. instead of overwriting this file, lets write it somewhere else so the old version is still there :D'
i.e. ALL versions of all files are saved until you run out of space, then you start to lose old stuff. Well i guess there might be some modifications so it only applies to certain files or something...
i do hope they lose the space stars background on it though... replace it with a rotating spiral and i'd be happy :D
G4DP
Apr 27, 08:00 AM
I thought they said that there was not any concerns?
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:37 PM
Similarities aside...Samsung cannot be hurting Apple sales as a result of this line. Move on Apple
mactoday
Apr 6, 10:56 AM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
It's ****ing great option while working at night in bed.
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
It's ****ing great option while working at night in bed.
GuitarDTO
Mar 31, 07:47 PM
Polished like the pure Google, "optimized from the ground up for tablets" Honeycomb running on the XOOM right now?
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
Huntn
Aug 17, 01:17 PM
Shift was good, but i thought it was really easy. Its also very forgiving, you dont need to have a lot of driving skill to finish the top races because drifting is really easy to control, you can enter turns quite a bit faster than you should, and you'll have more money than you know what to do with.
What you scale the difficulty up? On NFS:Shift, I started on easy A.I, quickly moved to normal, and am now doing most of my races on hard A.I. My car settings for traction and control and such is normal.
What you scale the difficulty up? On NFS:Shift, I started on easy A.I, quickly moved to normal, and am now doing most of my races on hard A.I. My car settings for traction and control and such is normal.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق