Author Topic: Mac Vs. PC  (Read 22469 times)

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #175 on: February 22, 2010, 03:41:46 PM »

 HTML5 or h.264. flash is dying.

 
Gracie Rules

HTexan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20031
  • Heath must lose!!
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #176 on: February 22, 2010, 06:05:38 PM »
HTML5 or h.264. flash is dying.

 

no, flash is very important on the web currently. Newer tech like html5 is still not widely used yet.
I really don't care about flash on a phone. but, the ipad is suppose to be the "best way" to view the web. it cant even view the whole web. cheap netbooks can view flash. no reason a tablet can't.
therefore, ill keep my cheap dell mini 9 for the road.
A

TrueGrit

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15192
  • Big dude...all the way big dude.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #177 on: February 22, 2010, 06:12:51 PM »
 I'm either gonna get this or a powermac in a few months

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/354670/asus-nx90-video-first-look
O

Captain Equipoise

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12927
  • back from the dead...
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #178 on: February 22, 2010, 06:22:59 PM »
HTML5 or h.264. flash is dying.

 


This guy's on crack.. saying flash isn't important to the web and that you can get around it with javascript and HTML.. LOLOL, flash changed the web for everyone, it's made sites rich with multimedia experience that's both easy to code and view/render. Youtube was a prime example of that, initially youtube ran on flash video.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #179 on: February 22, 2010, 06:34:17 PM »
I really used to think Macs were for fags and especially the I-phone. Once my HP got too beat up and the girlfriend's Compaq died I got us Macs for Christmas. I look at too much porn and she really wanted something shiny. Now I won't buy anything else.

Tre assured me I-phones weren't only for gays so now we have those too.  :) I'm just going to assume he was telling the truth.

Eyeball Chambers

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14348
  • Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #180 on: February 22, 2010, 06:53:55 PM »
Tell me about it.

First the iPhone, then I pulled the iMac out of its box (bought it a year before I opened it and it only plays music), then the Nano, then I started using the video iPod I bought years ago, and now I've added a MacBook Pro to the collection.

I'm officially a full-fledged fag. I think I'll go celebrate at Victoria's Secret today. :-\

Thank you for playing along.   This is why I like you. (no homo)
S

HTexan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20031
  • Heath must lose!!
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #181 on: February 22, 2010, 07:22:30 PM »
This guy's on crack.. saying flash isn't important to the web and that you can get around it with javascript and HTML.. LOLOL, flash changed the web for everyone, it's made sites rich with multimedia experience that's both easy to code and view/render. Youtube was a prime example of that, initially youtube ran on flash video.

he is a steve jobs ball washer. ;D
A

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #182 on: February 22, 2010, 08:53:53 PM »
This guy's on crack.. saying flash isn't important to the web and that you can get around it with javascript and HTML.. LOLOL, flash changed the web for everyone, it's made sites rich with multimedia experience that's both easy to code and view/render. Youtube was a prime example of that, initially youtube ran on flash video.



 He's talking about flash lite.-mobile phones-

 Pay attention to what he is saying...same to you Htexan. ;)

 Here another problem...Mouse pointer.

 Beyond all the complaints about speed and security, there is one fatal flaw with Flash on the iPhone's
 
 touchscreen: Flash animations need a mouse pointer - and an interface that can distinguish between

 hovering and actual clicking - to function normally. Hulu's Flash player  is held up as an example of the

 difference: hovering the mouse pointer of the bottom of the screen brings up the controller, while clicking

 is for pause/resume.


 
Gracie Rules

HTexan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20031
  • Heath must lose!!
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #183 on: February 22, 2010, 09:08:12 PM »

 He's talking about flash lite.-mobile phones-

 Pay attention to what he is saying...same to you Htexan. ;)

 Here another problem...Mouse pointer.

 Beyond all the complaints about speed and security, there is one fatal flaw with Flash on the iPhone's
 
 touchscreen: Flash animations need a mouse pointer - and an interface that can distinguish between

 hovering and actual clicking - to function normally. Hulu's Flash player  is held up as an example of the

 difference: hovering the mouse pointer of the bottom of the screen brings up the controller, while clicking

 is for pause/resume.


 
you said flash, now you want to changed it to mobile flash. ::)
A

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #184 on: February 22, 2010, 09:16:53 PM »
you said flash, now you want to changed it to mobile flash. ::)


 No I didn't. the guy on the video said that.

 Like I said pay attention. ;)
Gracie Rules

YngiweRhoads

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • Shreddin'
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #185 on: February 22, 2010, 09:43:00 PM »
HTML5 or h.264. flash is dying.

 


Not exactly.

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2010/01/25/the-dark-side-of-html-5-video/

Last week, YouTube announced beta HTML 5 video support: once you’ve activated the beta, you’ll see videos using a native browser element rather than the Flash plugin. The new player only works with a recent version of either Safari or Chrome (or Chrome Frame in IE), as the video is encoded with the H.264 codec, which isn’t supported in Firefox. A day after YouTube’s announcement, Vimeo made a similar one. They also now provide preliminary support for the HTML video element with a new HTML player.

Superficially this seems like a victory for the “open” Web, right? A few major sites, representing a significant percentage of online video, begin to move away from a proprietary technology (Flash) and towards an open standard (HTML 5). But when you look a little deeper it turns out to not be so simple. Both YouTube and Vimeo have chosen to provide their HTML video encoded with the H.264 codec, which is patent-encumbered. Apple has a big stake in H.264, so Safari supports it, and Google has paid a licensing fee to include an H.264 decoder in Chrome.

Mozilla Firefox, on the other hand, doesn’t support H.264: it will only play HTML video encoded with the Ogg Theora codec. This is partly for ideological reasons, as the Theora codec is open source and therefore inline with Mozilla’s principles. But there’s more to it than just ideology. In reply to YouTube’s announcement, Mozilla’s VP of Engineering, Mike Shaver, published a blog post explaining why Mozilla is sticking to its guns with Theora. He points to H.264’s licensing fees not only as a justification for Mozilla’s decision not to support the format, but also as a more dire threat: “[...] if H.264 becomes an accepted part of the standardized web, those fees are a barrier to entry for developers of new browsers, those bringing the web to new devices or platforms, and those who would build tools to help content and application development.” Mozilla’s Open Source Evangelist, Christopher Blizzard, also had a lot to say on the topic, likening the situation to what happened years ago with the GIF format (and, to a lesser extent, with MP3).

It’s important to remember that the current level of browser support for web standards comes, in large part, from Firefox’s ability to compete on a level playing field with other browsers, and from the Mozilla team’s dedication to open standards. When big sites like YouTube begin positioning a proprietary format as the de facto standard for HTML video, they significantly impede the ability of free-as-in-speech browsers like Firefox to rival their competitors in functionality, which hurts interoperability and innovation on the Web as a whole. Meanwhile, though Chrome and Safari may be excellent browsers, and while their support for modern standards-based HTML and CSS should be applauded, in this respect their choice of a proprietary video format is more reminiscent of IE, circa the mid-90’s.
1and1.com

The fact that YouTube and Vimeo are trumpeting their new HTML 5 video support as an open standards victory is misleading to say the least. And it does lead to confusion: as pointed out by Christopher Blizzard, more than a few people on Twitter seem to think that Firefox’s lack of support for YouTube’s HTML 5 video should be taken to mean that Firefox doesn’t support HTML 5!

YouTube stated that it was launching the new feature in response to a user survey in which “Support HTML5 open web video with open formats” was the most requested feature. It seems that YouTube might only have been paying attention to the first half of the sentence: HTML 5 video, yes; open formats, eh, not so much.

So what do you think? Is it the job of YouTube and other sites like it to lead the way in providing video in an open format? Or should Chrome and Safari lead the way by supporting those formats first? Or are Mozilla being hopeless idealists?



This article is one of the more recent in a series of articles debating html5, the iPad, iPhone, Apple, Flash and Adobe.

On a side note, I found this article to be very interesting. It could possibly push browser developers to adhere more closely to web standards and perhaps push for more support for the latest html and css updates.

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2010/02/23/microsoft-european-browser-choice/

6

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #186 on: February 22, 2010, 10:48:53 PM »

Not exactly.

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2010/01/25/the-dark-side-of-html-5-video/

Last week, YouTube announced beta HTML 5 video support: once you’ve activated the beta, you’ll see videos using a native browser element rather than the Flash plugin. The new player only works with a recent version of either Safari or Chrome (or Chrome Frame in IE), as the video is encoded with the H.264 codec, which isn’t supported in Firefox. A day after YouTube’s announcement, Vimeo made a similar one. They also now provide preliminary support for the HTML video element with a new HTML player.

Superficially this seems like a victory for the “open” Web, right? A few major sites, representing a significant percentage of online video, begin to move away from a proprietary technology (Flash) and towards an open standard (HTML 5). But when you look a little deeper it turns out to not be so simple. Both YouTube and Vimeo have chosen to provide their HTML video encoded with the H.264 codec, which is patent-encumbered. Apple has a big stake in H.264, so Safari supports it, and Google has paid a licensing fee to include an H.264 decoder in Chrome.

Mozilla Firefox, on the other hand, doesn’t support H.264: it will only play HTML video encoded with the Ogg Theora codec. This is partly for ideological reasons, as the Theora codec is open source and therefore inline with Mozilla’s principles. But there’s more to it than just ideology. In reply to YouTube’s announcement, Mozilla’s VP of Engineering, Mike Shaver, published a blog post explaining why Mozilla is sticking to its guns with Theora. He points to H.264’s licensing fees not only as a justification for Mozilla’s decision not to support the format, but also as a more dire threat: “[...] if H.264 becomes an accepted part of the standardized web, those fees are a barrier to entry for developers of new browsers, those bringing the web to new devices or platforms, and those who would build tools to help content and application development.” Mozilla’s Open Source Evangelist, Christopher Blizzard, also had a lot to say on the topic, likening the situation to what happened years ago with the GIF format (and, to a lesser extent, with MP3).

It’s important to remember that the current level of browser support for web standards comes, in large part, from Firefox’s ability to compete on a level playing field with other browsers, and from the Mozilla team’s dedication to open standards. When big sites like YouTube begin positioning a proprietary format as the de facto standard for HTML video, they significantly impede the ability of free-as-in-speech browsers like Firefox to rival their competitors in functionality, which hurts interoperability and innovation on the Web as a whole. Meanwhile, though Chrome and Safari may be excellent browsers, and while their support for modern standards-based HTML and CSS should be applauded, in this respect their choice of a proprietary video format is more reminiscent of IE, circa the mid-90’s.
1and1.com

The fact that YouTube and Vimeo are trumpeting their new HTML 5 video support as an open standards victory is misleading to say the least. And it does lead to confusion: as pointed out by Christopher Blizzard, more than a few people on Twitter seem to think that Firefox’s lack of support for YouTube’s HTML 5 video should be taken to mean that Firefox doesn’t support HTML 5!

YouTube stated that it was launching the new feature in response to a user survey in which “Support HTML5 open web video with open formats” was the most requested feature. It seems that YouTube might only have been paying attention to the first half of the sentence: HTML 5 video, yes; open formats, eh, not so much.

So what do you think? Is it the job of YouTube and other sites like it to lead the way in providing video in an open format? Or should Chrome and Safari lead the way by supporting those formats first? Or are Mozilla being hopeless idealists?



This article is one of the more recent in a series of articles debating html5, the iPad, iPhone, Apple, Flash and Adobe.

On a side note, I found this article to be very interesting. It could possibly push browser developers to adhere more closely to web standards and perhaps push for more support for the latest html and css updates.

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2010/02/23/microsoft-european-browser-choice/




 

 Firefox must allow the use of codecs present in the Operating system.
  
 Otherwise when html5 goes big Firefox will be left behind.




 One more thing...

 The basic problem is simple: H.264 is encumbered by patents whose licensing is actively pursued by the MPEG-LA. If you distribute H.264 codecs in a jurisdiction where software patents are enforceable, and you haven't paid the MPEG-LA for a patent license, you are at risk of being sued.

So why doesn't Mozilla just license H.264 (like everybody else)?

 One big reason is that that would violate principles of free software. In particular, mostpeople believe that downstream recipients of our code should be able to modify and redistribute it without losing any functionality. This is freedom that copyleft licenses such as the GPL and LGPL (which we use for our code) are intended to ensure. It is possible to obtain patent licenses in a way which works around the letter of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2, but honoring the letter while violating the spirit is not a game we are interested in playing.

But aren't there (L)GPL implementations of H.264?

 Yes, but they're not as free as they appear. Their freedom has been silently stolen by patents (in jurisdictions where those patents exist and are enforceable).


Mozilla should just ship without licensing as a civil disobedience measure. That might be fun, but I expect an injunction would quickly force us to disable H.264 and send a hefty damages payout to the MPEG-LA. That's not a win.

Mozilla should pick up and use H.264 codecs that are already installed on the user's system.there are two main issues:

    * Most users with Windows Vista and earlier do not have an H.264 codec installed. So for the majority of our users, this doesn't solve any problem.
    * It pushes the software freedom issues from the browser (where we have leverage to possibly change the codec situation) to the platform (where there is no such leverage). You still can't have a completely free software Web client stack.

But you could just download gst-plugins-ugly and I'd be OK. That's a selfish attitude. Everyone should be able to browse the Web with a free software stack without having to jump through arcane hoops to download and install software (whose use is legally questionable).

The H.264 patents will expire soon, and then we'll be OK. Many H.264 patents don't expire until 2017 or later. Anyway, H.264 isn't the last word in video compression. There will be an H.265 and the same set of problems will persist.

Users just want video to work. Mozilla people are such idealists!

 Yes, that is the reason for Mozilla to exist. Anyway, in the short term, our users probably won't be affected much since Flash fallback will still work. In the long term, I think freedom will ultimately benefit users (not just Firefox users, but all users).

Apart from the issues with H.264 support in clients, there are also huge issues around H.264 for Web authors and content providers. Currently providing H.264 content on the Internet is zero-cost, but after 2010 that will almost certainly change. . We won't know much about the terms until the end of this month. The key issue is not exactly how much it will cost, but that if you want to publish H.264 you will probably have to hire lawyers and negotiate a license with the MPEG-LA. If you just want to put a few videos on your Web site, or add a help video to your Web application, or put a video cut-scene in your Web game, that is probably not something you want to do. Web video is not just about Youtube; mandatory licensing would cripple the use of video on the Web. (Just imagine if we had such a regime for still images...) Even if there were no patent issues on the client side, this would still be a good reason for Mozilla to push for truly free codecs.

The honest truth is that none of us know how this is going play out. The proponents of mandatory licensing are strong, and most people don't care about software freedom.


  This is Apple/Google vs Mozilla.

  H.264 is better than Theora.
 
  See it's not that simple. ;)
Gracie Rules

YngiweRhoads

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • Shreddin'
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #187 on: February 23, 2010, 06:29:25 AM »
I think you’re underestimating the importance of Flash in today’s web. First, Flash was installed in over 95% of browsers before video support was introduced. The reason was it gave developers and users abilities that weren’t available in the native browser. Second, there are huge problems with HTML5, while it aims to make some of Flash’s features native to the browser, it doesn’t replace them all. Also, don’t expect Microsoft to adopt any of these new specs until they’re finalized. This isn’t going any time soon. I wouldn’t expect any meaningful HTML5 support in IE until at least version 11. After support has been added it’s still going to be a few years for the market to adopt the new browser. On top of that, there’s no tools available to make development easy enough or robust enough for real world use. Sure you can use canvas, SVG and JavaScript to create animations, but it’s not easy. At the moment, I can spend a week doing a simple animation in HTML5 or a few hours in Flash and after only a small minority would be able to view the HTML5 version.

6

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #188 on: February 23, 2010, 11:47:57 AM »

 Like I said before Steve Jobs he is not stupid.


 Since the iPhone was first released, people have complained about its lack of support for third-party multitasking. This sentiment was further amplified when Apple recently announced the iPad, a device which also won’t support multitasking outside of Apple’s own apps.

The proffered reason behind Apple’s reluctance to support system wide multitasking is that users will inevitably leave apps open and running in the background, forget about them, and inadvertently drain their battery and affect their system performance in the process.

“But that’s nonsense!” critics chant from the rooftops, “users are smart enough to keep track of what apps they have open, and even if they aren’t, Apple can just release an app similar to Androids’ Advanced Task Killer.

We, however, take an opposing viewpoint and humbly assert that the vast majority of tech users are decidedly not smart enough to responsibly handle multitasking, let alone make sense of an app that allows them to terminate processes.

Our evidence is admittedly unscientific, but nonetheless, compelling.

There’s an app on the iTunes App Store called Amazing X-Ray that purports to x-ray various parts of your body and show the corresopnding images on your iPhone/iPod Touch screen. The app is essentially a party gag, and you’d like to think that no one in their right minds would realistically think that Apple has somehow built in X-ray functionality into their products. But then, you’d be giving the public far too much credit.

To wit, take a look at some of the user reviews of the X-Ray app on iTunes.

“I bought it thinking it would actually work.. was I stupid?! Its a huge fraud. It’s not your REAL x-ray, its a HUGE fraud. Don’t waste your money on this. Its a huge fraud. I really want my money back. Its also really unclear and its stupid.”

“I was duped. They can return my money? I thought it was a true x ray. False and buy it now. Give me my money please.”

A slew of other user reviews express the same sentiment, with a good number of reviews being warnings to other users that the app isn’t real.

And here’s some more proof that most people are technically clueless in the form of a video where a man asks random passerbys on the street what a web browser is. Their answers are pretty ridiculous.


 



Like it or not, but these users represent the average tech user in America! They don’t know what multitasking is, they’ve never heard of Engadget, and they sure as hell care more about a product that just works than they do about a list of impressive sounding specs. You’d be surprised how many people navigate to CNN via typing CNN.com into Google rather than typing it into the address bar.

These people, my friends, are the people Apple keeps in mind when it designs a product. It might sound obnoxious to say, but Apple’s stance on multitasking is essentially geared towards saving users from themselves.

If you’re not down with that, then hey, that’s perfectly understandable. But don’t expect Apple to cave into the cries of geeks when the number non tech-savvy individuals are far more voluminous.
Gracie Rules

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #189 on: February 23, 2010, 11:59:03 AM »
I think you’re underestimating the importance of Flash in today’s web. First, Flash was installed in over 95% of browsers before video support was introduced. The reason was it gave developers and users abilities that weren’t available in the native browser. Second, there are huge problems with HTML5, while it aims to make some of Flash’s features native to the browser, it doesn’t replace them all. Also, don’t expect Microsoft to adopt any of these new specs until they’re finalized. This isn’t going any time soon. I wouldn’t expect any meaningful HTML5 support in IE until at least version 11. After support has been added it’s still going to be a few years for the market to adopt the new browser. On top of that, there’s no tools available to make development easy enough or robust enough for real world use. Sure you can use canvas, SVG and JavaScript to create animations, but it’s not easy. At the moment, I can spend a week doing a simple animation in HTML5 or a few hours in Flash and after only a small minority would be able to view the HTML5 version.




 Well!! it might take time. just a little.
 
 Agent Smith, please tell us your opinion.

 Agent Smith: It is inevitable.  ;)
Gracie Rules

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7108
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #190 on: February 23, 2010, 12:26:56 PM »
If you’re not down with that, then hey, that’s perfectly understandable. But don’t expect Apple to cave into the cries of geeks when the number non tech-savvy individuals are far more voluminous.

that's the iPhone.  Mac OSX is full-blown Unix, bash shell scripting, runs Apache, PHP, MySql, GCC, etc.   Mac OSX also has VMWare, where you can create instances of other OSs, including NT and Vista.   

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #191 on: February 23, 2010, 08:47:25 PM »

 Typical Apple fanboys.

 
Gracie Rules

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #192 on: February 27, 2010, 11:25:40 AM »

 For months since the iMac with 27-inch screen was released in October, users have been complaining about various issues with the display. Apple maintained silence about the problems for months, until finally acknowledging that some screens had a flickering problems in December and releasing a firmware update to fix it. Now, weeks after issuing a second firmware fix that it claims solves the problem, Apple is finally publicly admitting that there was a problem with screens showing a yellowish tinge.

An Apple spokesperson directly acknowledged the yellowing problem for the first time in a statement to Gizmodo. "We've addressed the issues that caused display flickering and yellow tint," the spokesperson said. "Customers concerned that their iMac is affected should contact AppleCare."

Shipping turnaround times listed on the Apple website have often surged to as much as three weeks as problem reports continued to mount, causing Apple to go so far as to publicly deny a rumor that it had stopped production of the iMac in order to find a fix to the problems. Now that Apple claims to have fixed the problem, shipping times for the 27-inch iMac are now displayed on the website as no more than three to five days. Apple has always maintained that the delays were just because of the high demand for Apple's flagship computer. The new iMac was the best-selling desktop in the U.S. when it debuted last October, with the 21.5-inch model taking first place and the 27-inch iMac the third-best-selling machine.

Apple released a firmware patch in December called iMac Graphics Firmware Update 1.0. Then, in February, Apple sent out a second fix called iMac Display Firmware Update 1.0 which was listed as being specifically for iMacs shipped in late 2009 only. An Apple service outlet in the UK reported at that time that Apple was offering a full refund plus a 15 percent bonus to some users whose issues had not been resolved after multiple tries.

Gizmodo, which has been very vocl in publicizing the issue and pressing Apple for a response, has cautioned new iMac owners to test their computers before concluding that the problem has been resolved. Even if a fix is in place, defective iMacs may still be in the pipeline, and Gizmodo notes that users may need to return their computers for working ones.
Gracie Rules

YngiweRhoads

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • Shreddin'
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #193 on: February 27, 2010, 11:41:59 AM »
For months since the iMac with 27-inch screen was released in October, users have been complaining about various issues with the display. Apple maintained silence about the problems for months, until finally acknowledging that some screens had a flickering problems in December and releasing a firmware update to fix it. Now, weeks after issuing a second firmware fix that it claims solves the problem, Apple is finally publicly admitting that there was a problem with screens showing a yellowish tinge.

An Apple spokesperson directly acknowledged the yellowing problem for the first time in a statement to Gizmodo. "We've addressed the issues that caused display flickering and yellow tint," the spokesperson said. "Customers concerned that their iMac is affected should contact AppleCare."

Shipping turnaround times listed on the Apple website have often surged to as much as three weeks as problem reports continued to mount, causing Apple to go so far as to publicly deny a rumor that it had stopped production of the iMac in order to find a fix to the problems. Now that Apple claims to have fixed the problem, shipping times for the 27-inch iMac are now displayed on the website as no more than three to five days. Apple has always maintained that the delays were just because of the high demand for Apple's flagship computer. The new iMac was the best-selling desktop in the U.S. when it debuted last October, with the 21.5-inch model taking first place and the 27-inch iMac the third-best-selling machine.

Apple released a firmware patch in December called iMac Graphics Firmware Update 1.0. Then, in February, Apple sent out a second fix called iMac Display Firmware Update 1.0 which was listed as being specifically for iMacs shipped in late 2009 only. An Apple service outlet in the UK reported at that time that Apple was offering a full refund plus a 15 percent bonus to some users whose issues had not been resolved after multiple tries.

Gizmodo, which has been very vocl in publicizing the issue and pressing Apple for a response, has cautioned new iMac owners to test their computers before concluding that the problem has been resolved. Even if a fix is in place, defective iMacs may still be in the pipeline, and Gizmodo notes that users may need to return their computers for working ones.

I could've swore I posted a link to this, or a similar article beforehand.

Apparently, Apple is more concerned with the mobile market these days.
6

Armstrong

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 549
  • Victor got screwed.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #194 on: February 27, 2010, 12:28:42 PM »
If you're arrogant, wish to overpay and are into graphic design, get a MAC. Otherwise PC.

LOL.  So true!  All the Mac people think there shit dont stink.   ;D
Everything is BIGGER in Texas!!!

Joel_A

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #195 on: February 27, 2010, 05:48:38 PM »
I don't get you guys that buy laptops with these huge ass screens.. like 17, 18" why not just get a tower !?!? at that point the fucking laptop is big enough to qualify as a suitcase.. maybe it's just me but isn't the point of a laptop mobility and easy of portability ?!!? 14" tops, anything larger you might as well just use a regular pc.


3d Archhitecture modeling. The bigger the screen, the better.

Captain Equipoise

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12927
  • back from the dead...
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #196 on: February 27, 2010, 10:28:33 PM »
3d Archhitecture modeling. The bigger the screen, the better.

Who the hell would do 3d modelling on a laptop !?!! I used to work in 3d graphics (way back in the day of Lightwave, Maya, Softimage) late 90's...  there's no way you could run an app like Maya properly on a laptop, there aren't enough system resources, let alone video card and memory to support it.. and even if you're talking about more industrial apps like apps for comercial deisgn, ie, solid works, autocad, etc. same arguement holds true.

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #197 on: March 04, 2010, 08:50:41 AM »

 Flash On The Way Out?

Adobe cannot seem to catch a break these days, after Steve Jobs cut down Flash, and continues to refuse to support Flash on the iPhone. At first, this didn't seem like a big deal, we all figured Flash would still hold strong and eventually Apple would cave. This doesn't seem to be the case, as more and more websites begin to replace their flash with HTML5 content (once the standards have been put in place by WWWC), many in an effort to support the iPhone.

Virgin America recently updated their entire website on Monday, which was once full of Flash content, and now uses HTML in order to deliver a better experience to the iPhone user and those phones that don't support Flash.

Virgin America is not the first website to do this of course, but its significant enough to indicate the trend of where companies truly want to place their target media, which these days is the increasingly large number of mobile smartphones. Google for one, has already created the ability to view YouTube videos with HTML5.

What are your thoughts? Have you seen any other website turn away from flash in an effort to support Mobile phones? Will Apple have the final say in this? Will we ever see flash on the iPhone? My guess, is no.
Gracie Rules

YngiweRhoads

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • Shreddin'
6

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19690
Re: Mac Vs. PC
« Reply #199 on: March 10, 2010, 07:47:22 AM »
My other half uses a PC and he mocks my Mac all the time.  :-\

I never thought I would do it as I have no desire to run PC software, but yesterday I installed Windows on both my Macbook and Mac Pro.  My Mac is now running OSX and Windows Vista.  Can your PC do that?  My other half is eating his words.  :-X
 
;D