wlh99
Apr 26, 08:59 PM
After that I implement a Cancel method pointing to sender (button)
So, my goal is to use 1 start button and 1 cancel button.. and just do their actions. I have set up a the start button to start both timers, obviously both start their countdown at the same time which is not good.
I want to tell one timer to start and if I press cancel, invalidate it. Then If I press start again, call the second timer. (I do this because I read that you can't reuse a timer after you invalidate it).
Some people have suggested to use Booleans like true or false, or conditions. What do you think?
What if after pressing the start button, you create a timer and start it. Then pressing the cancel button invalidates and releases it. Then pressing the start button would create another timer, using the same pointer.
Totally untested and probably broken code below, but should demonstrate the idea:
-(IBAction)startButton:(id) sender {
// myTimer is declared in header file ...
if (myTimer!=nil) { // if the pointer already points to a timer, you don't want to create a second one without stoping and destroying the first
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release];
}
// Now that we know myTimer doesn't point to a timer already..
myTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:aTimeInterval target:self selector:@selector(echoIt:) userInfo:myDict repeats:YES];
[myTimer retain];
}
-(IBAction)cancelIt:(id) sender {
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release]; // This timer is now gone, and you won't reuse it.
}
So, my goal is to use 1 start button and 1 cancel button.. and just do their actions. I have set up a the start button to start both timers, obviously both start their countdown at the same time which is not good.
I want to tell one timer to start and if I press cancel, invalidate it. Then If I press start again, call the second timer. (I do this because I read that you can't reuse a timer after you invalidate it).
Some people have suggested to use Booleans like true or false, or conditions. What do you think?
What if after pressing the start button, you create a timer and start it. Then pressing the cancel button invalidates and releases it. Then pressing the start button would create another timer, using the same pointer.
Totally untested and probably broken code below, but should demonstrate the idea:
-(IBAction)startButton:(id) sender {
// myTimer is declared in header file ...
if (myTimer!=nil) { // if the pointer already points to a timer, you don't want to create a second one without stoping and destroying the first
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release];
}
// Now that we know myTimer doesn't point to a timer already..
myTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:aTimeInterval target:self selector:@selector(echoIt:) userInfo:myDict repeats:YES];
[myTimer retain];
}
-(IBAction)cancelIt:(id) sender {
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release]; // This timer is now gone, and you won't reuse it.
}
Mammoth
Oct 3, 08:40 PM
I'm dreaming for 2 'iPhones'
RAZR Killer: $149, ultra slim. iTunes, iCal, iChat, .Mac, Address Book, Mail, Mobile iWeb, Bluetooth. 2GB flash storage. 2MP camera.
Treo/Blackberry Killer: $299, Treo-like form, full QWERTY, same apps as RAZR killer + 4GB flash storage. 3MP camera.
And of course iTV, Merom updates, and a true video iPod.
RAZR Killer: $149, ultra slim. iTunes, iCal, iChat, .Mac, Address Book, Mail, Mobile iWeb, Bluetooth. 2GB flash storage. 2MP camera.
Treo/Blackberry Killer: $299, Treo-like form, full QWERTY, same apps as RAZR killer + 4GB flash storage. 3MP camera.
And of course iTV, Merom updates, and a true video iPod.
rockosmodurnlif
Apr 29, 03:52 PM
Common sense.
aegisdesign
May 1, 09:35 PM
Maybe in another few releases they'll revert back to making the active state aqua blue to distinguish it from a disabled button.
10.7's UI changes are ridiculous. For decades we've been used to UI elements being in a darker grey to indicate them being inactive or disabled, now Apple want to switch that around?
Back in the 10.4 days I used to use Uno to remove brushed metal and make the UI consistent. In 10.5 and 10.6 there was no need for Uno but I can see it's going to be needed again in 10.7.
Uno (btw) - http://gui.interacto.net/
10.7's UI changes are ridiculous. For decades we've been used to UI elements being in a darker grey to indicate them being inactive or disabled, now Apple want to switch that around?
Back in the 10.4 days I used to use Uno to remove brushed metal and make the UI consistent. In 10.5 and 10.6 there was no need for Uno but I can see it's going to be needed again in 10.7.
Uno (btw) - http://gui.interacto.net/
BlindMellon
Apr 25, 08:34 PM
I don't get the fascination with a marginal bigger screen, if I need a bigger screen I get my iPad.
They had the perfect opportunity to change the screen size last year. They introducing a higher resolution screen and a new design. They could have designed the phone for a larger screen and talked about how the screen was both larger and sharper. Instead, they kept the same screen size and talked about the 326 PPI retina resolution.
So now you think that they are adding a larger screen with fewer PPI to last years' form-factor which was designed for a 3.5" screen? C'mon... get real.
Why would Apple create a new design with the same screen size if they were planning on using that same design a year later with a larger screen? It doesn't make any sense. If they had plans to use a larger screen, they would have done it with the iPhone 4. If they do it in the future, it will have a different design.
this is true and one of my main gripes: they had the opportunity to enlarge the screen back when they redesigned the whole damn phone. they drew a line in the sand with the 3.5" screen and i doubt they'll change it any time soon. plus, the longer they wait, the more foolish they'll look when they finally do get around to it.
They had the perfect opportunity to change the screen size last year. They introducing a higher resolution screen and a new design. They could have designed the phone for a larger screen and talked about how the screen was both larger and sharper. Instead, they kept the same screen size and talked about the 326 PPI retina resolution.
So now you think that they are adding a larger screen with fewer PPI to last years' form-factor which was designed for a 3.5" screen? C'mon... get real.
Why would Apple create a new design with the same screen size if they were planning on using that same design a year later with a larger screen? It doesn't make any sense. If they had plans to use a larger screen, they would have done it with the iPhone 4. If they do it in the future, it will have a different design.
this is true and one of my main gripes: they had the opportunity to enlarge the screen back when they redesigned the whole damn phone. they drew a line in the sand with the 3.5" screen and i doubt they'll change it any time soon. plus, the longer they wait, the more foolish they'll look when they finally do get around to it.
gugy
Sep 26, 11:16 AM
The reasons people HATE this new version so much:
1. It adds a lot of features and answers requests.
2. It's a free update.
3. This is a photography event, and people were caught off guard when Apple showed their photography product, despite the Aperture image right on the invitation.
4. Apple never releases hardware on Tuesdays, so there is no hope for any MacBook Pro updates tomorrow.
5. There will never be another chance for new MacBook Pros. We now know that the current models will be sold forever and ever, even after Apple goes out of business, which will happen by the end of the year.
:p
so true.
This forum is mostly visited by whiners.
So many people wanted the MPB at a photography event. what a joke. they did not get it and now all the crying.
Basically you have just to ignore these folks if you want to have a nice experience at Macrumors.
1. It adds a lot of features and answers requests.
2. It's a free update.
3. This is a photography event, and people were caught off guard when Apple showed their photography product, despite the Aperture image right on the invitation.
4. Apple never releases hardware on Tuesdays, so there is no hope for any MacBook Pro updates tomorrow.
5. There will never be another chance for new MacBook Pros. We now know that the current models will be sold forever and ever, even after Apple goes out of business, which will happen by the end of the year.
:p
so true.
This forum is mostly visited by whiners.
So many people wanted the MPB at a photography event. what a joke. they did not get it and now all the crying.
Basically you have just to ignore these folks if you want to have a nice experience at Macrumors.
geerlingguy
Oct 2, 02:59 PM
As usual, any hack that will come out will probably be hard to use, and <1% of the general computer-using population will ever use it. I don't see this as a big threat, really...
I'd say less than 10% of the general computer-using population even *heard* of the previous iTunes 'Play Fair' stuff (such as Hymn, Harmony, etc.), much less even thought of using it. Don't believe me? Ask your Mom, Grandma, non-geek friends, etc.
More people have heard of the 'DeCSS' programs, but, again, how many have actually used them? I'd say less than 1% of the computer-using public. And most of these people, like me, would only use it to exercise 'fair use' rights (i.e. I'm going on a plane trip, and I rip a DVD I own to my HD to save battery power, then I delete the files after watching it).
I'd say less than 10% of the general computer-using population even *heard* of the previous iTunes 'Play Fair' stuff (such as Hymn, Harmony, etc.), much less even thought of using it. Don't believe me? Ask your Mom, Grandma, non-geek friends, etc.
More people have heard of the 'DeCSS' programs, but, again, how many have actually used them? I'd say less than 1% of the computer-using public. And most of these people, like me, would only use it to exercise 'fair use' rights (i.e. I'm going on a plane trip, and I rip a DVD I own to my HD to save battery power, then I delete the files after watching it).
slb
Oct 29, 02:26 AM
Well, Logic Pro 7 has been cracked and can be downloaded via usenet...
No, it has not. Take a closer look at what the "crack" does.
No, it has not. Take a closer look at what the "crack" does.
iliketomac
Nov 23, 05:33 PM
Believe me... THESE are the prices:
"Joy to the Wallet" sale only on black friday '06:
iMac: $898-$1958
MacBook: $998-$1398
.Mac: $68
iPod Nano (except Reds): $138-$228
iPod: $228-$318
Wireless Mighty Mouse: $58
+ various select accessories with varying discounts usually 10%-25% depending on product....
...and this includes select speakers, headphones, external hard drives, ipod cases, nike+ipod sport kit, etc...
"Joy to the Wallet" sale only on black friday '06:
iMac: $898-$1958
MacBook: $998-$1398
.Mac: $68
iPod Nano (except Reds): $138-$228
iPod: $228-$318
Wireless Mighty Mouse: $58
+ various select accessories with varying discounts usually 10%-25% depending on product....
...and this includes select speakers, headphones, external hard drives, ipod cases, nike+ipod sport kit, etc...
gaseby
Aug 2, 02:58 PM
hi,
I have had a chance to browse through the reply (allthough parts of it was cencored):
- License agreement. Apple distinguish between license agreement for iTunes Jukebox and iTunes Music Store and they mean the government have been mixin this up
- License agreement. They will do som smaller adjustments (clarifications) around the issue of changes to the license agreement would have effect on previously purchased music, the intention was not to have any effect on previously purchased music
- License agreement. They will do changes so it will be clearer to the user when the license agreement has been changed
- DRM, usage of iTunes music files in other players than iPod. They do not give in on this, their argument is 1) it is playable on the PC 2) it may be burned on a CD and played on other CD players. They also blend into the argument that Norway has a fairly new law with respect to music download and copy/usage rights and the different plotical parties and politicians have said "this and that" which may support Apples case. I would assume that sooner or later there will be a court case in order to put more details on the law and its interpretation. This may be it (or not).
With respect to this having impact on other countries there are some arguments in the letter which quotes EU/E�S laws, however their DRM arguments is mainly reflecting their interpretation of Norwegian law.
I have had a chance to browse through the reply (allthough parts of it was cencored):
- License agreement. Apple distinguish between license agreement for iTunes Jukebox and iTunes Music Store and they mean the government have been mixin this up
- License agreement. They will do som smaller adjustments (clarifications) around the issue of changes to the license agreement would have effect on previously purchased music, the intention was not to have any effect on previously purchased music
- License agreement. They will do changes so it will be clearer to the user when the license agreement has been changed
- DRM, usage of iTunes music files in other players than iPod. They do not give in on this, their argument is 1) it is playable on the PC 2) it may be burned on a CD and played on other CD players. They also blend into the argument that Norway has a fairly new law with respect to music download and copy/usage rights and the different plotical parties and politicians have said "this and that" which may support Apples case. I would assume that sooner or later there will be a court case in order to put more details on the law and its interpretation. This may be it (or not).
With respect to this having impact on other countries there are some arguments in the letter which quotes EU/E�S laws, however their DRM arguments is mainly reflecting their interpretation of Norwegian law.
Play Ultimate
Oct 3, 12:44 PM
iPhone will come out before X'mas.
Actually I would predict a video iPod before Xmas; with a possible announcement right around the time Zune is released.
iPhone I don't see until next year sometime.
Actually I would predict a video iPod before Xmas; with a possible announcement right around the time Zune is released.
iPhone I don't see until next year sometime.
thisisahughes
Mar 29, 12:58 AM
Could they... award themselves?
FaceTime or Xcode?
FaceTime or Xcode?
dgree03
May 4, 11:03 AM
iPads will be as great and as useful as this commercial makes them seem, when they get more features and usablity to being it closer to a desktop OS(no apple fanboys, I do not want it to BE a desktop OS)
BC2009
May 2, 11:56 AM
Oh the conspiracies!!!!
As a software developer, the explanation that Apple gave seems far more plausible than "they are tracking your every move".
It makes total sense to keep a cache of cell tower positions to speed up positioning through trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration). It also makes sense for Apple to maintain this as a crowd-sourced database and download part of it to your phone. Further, it makes sense for a developer to make an arbitrary decision to say "let's make the cache size 2MB -- that's smaller than a single song". Finally, it makes sense for QA to miss this since the file is not readily visible through the user interface. A very good article on this is here (http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.html).
I for one cannot remember a single iAd ever popping that was more appropriate based on my location (e.g.: a restaurant ad showing up when I was near a location for that restaurant chain). I seriously doubt that Apple cares where I have been for the past year -- especially with the huge degree of error that trilateration offers. But they definitely care about the crowd-sourced data to understand what regions iPhones are being used most heavily.
Certainly, if Apple wanted to record my personal position it would make MUCH MUCH MUCH more sense for their servers to simply record the query my phone makes to obtain the portion of the crowd-sourced database that my phone wants to cache. That query could easily include a more exact GPS position (i.e.: give me the part of the cache near this location). It could also include a phone identifier. Of course, a timestamp could be associated with the query. They could keep the information on their own servers where I would NEVER EVER see it and they could easily access it. Keeping it on my phone simply does not make sense if Apple really wanted this information -- it makes it easy for me to find and it is of less use to Apple that way.
I wonder if Google records my Wifi/GPS location on Google Maps or what locations I searched when using Google Maps. Hopefully, my identity is anonymized before the query is sent to Google for what part of the Maps database to pull down and cache. But again, it would be really easy for anybody to do this on the server side.
As a software developer, the explanation that Apple gave seems far more plausible than "they are tracking your every move".
It makes total sense to keep a cache of cell tower positions to speed up positioning through trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration). It also makes sense for Apple to maintain this as a crowd-sourced database and download part of it to your phone. Further, it makes sense for a developer to make an arbitrary decision to say "let's make the cache size 2MB -- that's smaller than a single song". Finally, it makes sense for QA to miss this since the file is not readily visible through the user interface. A very good article on this is here (http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.html).
I for one cannot remember a single iAd ever popping that was more appropriate based on my location (e.g.: a restaurant ad showing up when I was near a location for that restaurant chain). I seriously doubt that Apple cares where I have been for the past year -- especially with the huge degree of error that trilateration offers. But they definitely care about the crowd-sourced data to understand what regions iPhones are being used most heavily.
Certainly, if Apple wanted to record my personal position it would make MUCH MUCH MUCH more sense for their servers to simply record the query my phone makes to obtain the portion of the crowd-sourced database that my phone wants to cache. That query could easily include a more exact GPS position (i.e.: give me the part of the cache near this location). It could also include a phone identifier. Of course, a timestamp could be associated with the query. They could keep the information on their own servers where I would NEVER EVER see it and they could easily access it. Keeping it on my phone simply does not make sense if Apple really wanted this information -- it makes it easy for me to find and it is of less use to Apple that way.
I wonder if Google records my Wifi/GPS location on Google Maps or what locations I searched when using Google Maps. Hopefully, my identity is anonymized before the query is sent to Google for what part of the Maps database to pull down and cache. But again, it would be really easy for anybody to do this on the server side.
hob
Jan 5, 03:29 PM
Although the data transferred may be the same or more with on-demand streams, when it's live there will be much higher simultaneous usage. With high-end hosting in general, simultaneous usage is the killer and not really total bandwidth usage. With the popularity of Apple these days the number of simultaneous streams could be extremely high (I mean, if MacRumors gets 100,000 visitors simultaneously think what Apple would get themselves).
I don't think expense is the issue here.
Apple can either:
1. Offer the stream only to the stores
2. Pay for massive bandwidth. Have you seen the profit from last quarter alone?! The people watching would most probably have bought an apple product of 5 recently!
I don't think expense is the issue here.
Apple can either:
1. Offer the stream only to the stores
2. Pay for massive bandwidth. Have you seen the profit from last quarter alone?! The people watching would most probably have bought an apple product of 5 recently!
fivepoint
May 5, 01:44 PM
I agree.
Well, in this case, many hospitals require you to have a car seat on hand before you drive your newborn home. So, there is some input from doctors based on a public health perspective. And, frankly, it's a good thing.
Yes, I noted the variability of the argument in an earlier post. You distilled it down nicely. There are overtones though regarding the role of government in controlling what doctors can and can't do that I find distasteful in both situations while, as you pointed out, others seem ok with in some.
"There is nothing wrong with a doctor talking to anyone about guns, as they can be a risk to health."
True, if at the bar in the country club among friends, or at a session of shooting skeet. I've taught a couple of doctors about guns, and freely admit to knowing them. Doctors can be okay people, although some are socially unacceptable IMO.
But otherwise it's exactly like asking someone how much money they have in the bank. You don't ask a farmer how many acres he owns--which is the same thing. Nor ask a rancher how many head of cattle he runs. Rude, discourteous and just plain ignorant.
Rude, discourteous and just plain ignorant is assaying pretty high-grade in today's society--but it's still stupidity at its finest.
A doctor has no way of knowing the circumstances of somebody's homelife--and since there are tens of millions of homes I submit that there is no "One size fits all" to allow some outsider's judgement. He is no expert on firearms use or safety, absent being a "gunny" himself.
It's nobody's business how much of what that I own or how much money I have. Ah, well, nothing's really new among idiots. Hank Williams sang about it over sixty years ago: "If you mind your own business, then you won't be minding mine; if you mind your own business you'll stay busy all the time."
Didn't know things were so different down in Texas, but here in Iowa it's not rude to ask a farmer how many acres they have nor how many cattle they run. My family farm has both, and we get those questions all the time. Not a big deal. That being said, if my doctor asked me if I had guns, and how many, in the course of a checkup, my response would be... "Why? Why in the world do you want to know that?" If he said so that he could calculate risk and provide suggestions in that regard, I'd tell him to kindly mind his own business and I'd tend to the safety of my own family. If he was a jerk about it, I'd get a new doctor... plain and simple. The government shouldn't be involved at all in telling him what he can and can't ask... it's a free country. Likewise, if that same doctor asked me what my religion was, I answered Lutheran, to which he replied that he could no longer provide me services as he only did business with straight atheists, I would be totally ok with that as well. His choice. If it was life and death, and he let me die when no other alternatives were available, then it'd be a prosecutable offense having nothing to do with religion.
Well, in this case, many hospitals require you to have a car seat on hand before you drive your newborn home. So, there is some input from doctors based on a public health perspective. And, frankly, it's a good thing.
Yes, I noted the variability of the argument in an earlier post. You distilled it down nicely. There are overtones though regarding the role of government in controlling what doctors can and can't do that I find distasteful in both situations while, as you pointed out, others seem ok with in some.
"There is nothing wrong with a doctor talking to anyone about guns, as they can be a risk to health."
True, if at the bar in the country club among friends, or at a session of shooting skeet. I've taught a couple of doctors about guns, and freely admit to knowing them. Doctors can be okay people, although some are socially unacceptable IMO.
But otherwise it's exactly like asking someone how much money they have in the bank. You don't ask a farmer how many acres he owns--which is the same thing. Nor ask a rancher how many head of cattle he runs. Rude, discourteous and just plain ignorant.
Rude, discourteous and just plain ignorant is assaying pretty high-grade in today's society--but it's still stupidity at its finest.
A doctor has no way of knowing the circumstances of somebody's homelife--and since there are tens of millions of homes I submit that there is no "One size fits all" to allow some outsider's judgement. He is no expert on firearms use or safety, absent being a "gunny" himself.
It's nobody's business how much of what that I own or how much money I have. Ah, well, nothing's really new among idiots. Hank Williams sang about it over sixty years ago: "If you mind your own business, then you won't be minding mine; if you mind your own business you'll stay busy all the time."
Didn't know things were so different down in Texas, but here in Iowa it's not rude to ask a farmer how many acres they have nor how many cattle they run. My family farm has both, and we get those questions all the time. Not a big deal. That being said, if my doctor asked me if I had guns, and how many, in the course of a checkup, my response would be... "Why? Why in the world do you want to know that?" If he said so that he could calculate risk and provide suggestions in that regard, I'd tell him to kindly mind his own business and I'd tend to the safety of my own family. If he was a jerk about it, I'd get a new doctor... plain and simple. The government shouldn't be involved at all in telling him what he can and can't ask... it's a free country. Likewise, if that same doctor asked me what my religion was, I answered Lutheran, to which he replied that he could no longer provide me services as he only did business with straight atheists, I would be totally ok with that as well. His choice. If it was life and death, and he let me die when no other alternatives were available, then it'd be a prosecutable offense having nothing to do with religion.
SciFrog
May 10, 05:16 PM
Seing your "adventures", no way I would ever try to do anything on a custom rig...
JTR7
Oct 23, 03:43 PM
I think you both...
That was directed more at True... But, thanks for the enlightenment.
Obviously, you can understand the confusion.
That was directed more at True... But, thanks for the enlightenment.
Obviously, you can understand the confusion.
swarmster
Jan 9, 05:33 PM
Everyone please be careful opening Quicktime (to do an "open url..." as MacRumors recommends)! If you have it set to load the 'content guide' on startup, there's a spoiler image waiting for you.
(Yeah, I know, I should have disabled it a long time ago.)
(Yeah, I know, I should have disabled it a long time ago.)
tdhurst
Jan 12, 09:27 PM
So gizmodo is responsible for this how? Questioning what makes an online a journalist a journalist and not just a fan site has been going on for some time (aka: before gizmodo turned off a bunch of TVs). You're just scapegoating an easy target. If you have a problem with the conferences and expos limiting press to only a few big names go after that. Not after guys who like to prank people. You'll change nothing by attacking gizmodo.
I think what he is trying to say here is that we're all pissed at Gizmodo for possibly lending legitimacy to big media claims that online-only or blogger sites aren't real journalists, but rather fan sites. I'm not saying that everyone will think this, but the majority of the less-involved public could be swayed.
Pranks like this by Gizmodo just give them false credibility to their incorrect claims.
I would argue that many people lump all blogger sites into one group, neglecting to admit there are great differences from site to site. Right now, because these new players are not complete accepted yet, anything done by one has repercussions on everyone.
I think what he is trying to say here is that we're all pissed at Gizmodo for possibly lending legitimacy to big media claims that online-only or blogger sites aren't real journalists, but rather fan sites. I'm not saying that everyone will think this, but the majority of the less-involved public could be swayed.
Pranks like this by Gizmodo just give them false credibility to their incorrect claims.
I would argue that many people lump all blogger sites into one group, neglecting to admit there are great differences from site to site. Right now, because these new players are not complete accepted yet, anything done by one has repercussions on everyone.
0010101
Oct 29, 11:57 AM
No, you have it backwards. Software companies don't release products because the hardware is out there. They release because they've added new features and want user to upgrade and new consumers to come. Consumers buy the hardware because the software is available for it. A computer without software is just a really expensive paper weight. It's Adobe's lack of a native Creative Suite than keeps professionals from picking up MacPros - and Apple said just that during their last financial results call.
You think graphic designers aren't interested in getting an Intel Mac and the performance gains that come with it? They get higher performance running Photoshop on the G5's they have now than running it on the Intel Macs under Rosetta. So why spend the money to degrade your production apps?
Adobe has nothing to gain from not releasing a native Creative Suite. I mean, it's not like Apple is going to hold a press conference tomorrow and announce they are going back to IBM chips. This is the future and if Adobe doesn't ship a new Creative Suite they will be no different than the companies that never ported their apps to PPC native versions and stayed with 68k - giving up.
The graphics professionals I know don't scurry out to buy a new Mac everytime apple lifts it's cheek and plops one out.
Software companies make their money by writing their software to the largest audience, and the Intel Mac is currently a very small portion of an already small segment of the general 'computer user' population.
If your argument is that if Adobe were to write a universal version of their software that graphics professionals would run out instantly to buy new hardware, that's just not reality.. not when they're still paying off the G5's they just bought a year or two ago.
The vast majority of people I know who use an Apple computer for a living in the visual arts sector have not made the switch to an Intel Mac, and don't plan to anytime soon, regardless of what Adobe does.
In fact, talk around the campfire seems to revolve around wether Intel Mac native apps will run any better or faster than the new crop of Winblows apps.. with some 'jumping ship' to join the thousands of others who have moved to the Windows platform in recent years.
You think graphic designers aren't interested in getting an Intel Mac and the performance gains that come with it? They get higher performance running Photoshop on the G5's they have now than running it on the Intel Macs under Rosetta. So why spend the money to degrade your production apps?
Adobe has nothing to gain from not releasing a native Creative Suite. I mean, it's not like Apple is going to hold a press conference tomorrow and announce they are going back to IBM chips. This is the future and if Adobe doesn't ship a new Creative Suite they will be no different than the companies that never ported their apps to PPC native versions and stayed with 68k - giving up.
The graphics professionals I know don't scurry out to buy a new Mac everytime apple lifts it's cheek and plops one out.
Software companies make their money by writing their software to the largest audience, and the Intel Mac is currently a very small portion of an already small segment of the general 'computer user' population.
If your argument is that if Adobe were to write a universal version of their software that graphics professionals would run out instantly to buy new hardware, that's just not reality.. not when they're still paying off the G5's they just bought a year or two ago.
The vast majority of people I know who use an Apple computer for a living in the visual arts sector have not made the switch to an Intel Mac, and don't plan to anytime soon, regardless of what Adobe does.
In fact, talk around the campfire seems to revolve around wether Intel Mac native apps will run any better or faster than the new crop of Winblows apps.. with some 'jumping ship' to join the thousands of others who have moved to the Windows platform in recent years.
jonharris200
Jan 5, 04:23 PM
If I recall correctly (prob. not) Apple use to have the keynote live on TV that people could pick up with old c-band sat. recievers. What ever happend to that?
Yeah, and before that - like gazillions of years ago - Apple used to stream it as a pre-historic cave painting (animated, of course). 'Direct to a den near you' was the tag-line. Anyone else remember that? :D
Yeah, and before that - like gazillions of years ago - Apple used to stream it as a pre-historic cave painting (animated, of course). 'Direct to a den near you' was the tag-line. Anyone else remember that? :D
abhimat.gautam
May 3, 11:52 PM
Great ad, but the music seemed to fit completely with the "We Believe" ad and not really with this one.
true777
Sep 29, 12:42 AM
Man, that is a crummy little house by Silicon Valley standards if I ever saw one. I live in the neighboring town (Portola Valley), which is essentially the same as Woodside, and hence know many homes in the area (including the one I live in). And by current standards around here, not having a private bathroom for EACH bedroom, and a LARGE closet, is pretty substandard. Also, to only have *1* walk-in in the master rather than 2 is not good. No home theater? Large gym with panoramic views? Sauna/steam room/? Sun room? Library? Detached guest suite or guest house (in-law/nanny quarters, etc.)? Swimming pool? Hot tub? This honestly doesn't look like a place where a man of his caliber would be living full-time. Of course his house in Palo Alto isn't huge, either, but at least it is charming, historic, enchanted.
He has a number of kids, so I'm not sure how they would all fit into this small space with their friends when, e.g., everyone comes home for summers, holidays, etc. Typical houses for higher level people in the Woodside area would have at least 6-7 bedrooms, a bathroom for each bedroom, plus several additional half bathrooms, and probably about 10,000 squ. ft.
Only thing that makes sense to me is that he would view this as his retirement house since it'll only be done ~5 years, anyway. And I suppose for retirement people like to keep it small and simple. That would make sense to me and might hint at when he might be planning on retiring.
He has a number of kids, so I'm not sure how they would all fit into this small space with their friends when, e.g., everyone comes home for summers, holidays, etc. Typical houses for higher level people in the Woodside area would have at least 6-7 bedrooms, a bathroom for each bedroom, plus several additional half bathrooms, and probably about 10,000 squ. ft.
Only thing that makes sense to me is that he would view this as his retirement house since it'll only be done ~5 years, anyway. And I suppose for retirement people like to keep it small and simple. That would make sense to me and might hint at when he might be planning on retiring.
No comments:
Post a Comment