Derbus
Jan 26, 07:20 PM
These things happen, but this isnt the first time this has happened to Apple either
blizaine
May 4, 07:39 AM
This news raises all sorts of questions:
1) When will the iPhone 5 actually be released?
2) Should I go to Chipotle for lunch?
1) When will the iPhone 5 actually be released?
2) Should I go to Chipotle for lunch?
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
iEvolution
Apr 22, 01:33 PM
What has apple done that is unethical?
I consider lack of hardware recalls unethical. They always try to hoard as much money as they can.
A few examples are:
1-2007 iPod Touch inverted black issue that was a HARDWARE related problem with the coating on it. Apple just released a firmware update to cover the problem by changing the gamma settings.
2-iPhone antenna issue, cheap 50 cent bumpers to cover the problem because they think everyone should just be a lab rat for them. Then their attitude that it wasn't a issue until the media exploded all over it. Then they act like children and release all those youtube videos of antenna problems with a bunch of other phones like its acceptable.
3-2007 Classic/Nano, when initially released these were the biggest pieces of crap, it was like no one even bothered to turn them on before they released it and it wasn't until 6 months later that the classic was updated enough to work decent. Some issues were:
a) unable to retain ratings if you played any games
b) extremely slow navigation (esp the classic)
c) reboot loops for some
d) coverflow as useless on the classic (though I never used it anyway)
This was actually the 1st iPod I had to take back because it was so nonfunctional, from this point on it seems quality control has taken a backseat.
iTunes 7 was ridiculous when syncing any of the 2007 devices it would randomly freeze for 2-3 seconds when you tried to transfer files and it would take forever to get them to sync because of this. Took apple 2 months to even fix it.
4-The App pack update they charged iPod touch users $20 for then barely a month later they released a update and charged $10 for it and it already included the $20 app... so essentially the early adapters paid $30 in the end.
5-Their discussion boards are heavily modded and anything negative about their products that they don't like they remove it for no reason. In otherwords, they refuse to look at the criticism with a open mind and instead try to cover it.
6-The iLounge 3rd gen shuffle review had a not recommended rating on their site and as a response apple denied them access to the next event. They are giant manipulators when it comes to 3rd party reviews of their products.
7-While I can't say if it is a music industry issue or apple trying to nickle and dime people, but I thought it was ridiculous that they were charging 30 cents to get DRM files for the early adapters like myself (I had well over 700 songs in DRM format). Essentially making people pay $1.30 for each song while if someone new came to iTunes they could get the song for $1 still. (At the beginning iTunes was still a flat $1 charge).
8-Apple has had SEVERAL display problems (the 27" iMac displays) over the years, once again they attempt to fix these issues with "firmware" updates.
It seems since around 2007 apple has just dropped the ball ethically, since they are on top in several markets they seem to have cared about nothing but getting as much money out of consumers as possible.
Sorry but that is how I view it. I think they make some amazing hardware and I own several iPods and I love every single one of them but I think Apple as a company is pretty shoddy.
I consider lack of hardware recalls unethical. They always try to hoard as much money as they can.
A few examples are:
1-2007 iPod Touch inverted black issue that was a HARDWARE related problem with the coating on it. Apple just released a firmware update to cover the problem by changing the gamma settings.
2-iPhone antenna issue, cheap 50 cent bumpers to cover the problem because they think everyone should just be a lab rat for them. Then their attitude that it wasn't a issue until the media exploded all over it. Then they act like children and release all those youtube videos of antenna problems with a bunch of other phones like its acceptable.
3-2007 Classic/Nano, when initially released these were the biggest pieces of crap, it was like no one even bothered to turn them on before they released it and it wasn't until 6 months later that the classic was updated enough to work decent. Some issues were:
a) unable to retain ratings if you played any games
b) extremely slow navigation (esp the classic)
c) reboot loops for some
d) coverflow as useless on the classic (though I never used it anyway)
This was actually the 1st iPod I had to take back because it was so nonfunctional, from this point on it seems quality control has taken a backseat.
iTunes 7 was ridiculous when syncing any of the 2007 devices it would randomly freeze for 2-3 seconds when you tried to transfer files and it would take forever to get them to sync because of this. Took apple 2 months to even fix it.
4-The App pack update they charged iPod touch users $20 for then barely a month later they released a update and charged $10 for it and it already included the $20 app... so essentially the early adapters paid $30 in the end.
5-Their discussion boards are heavily modded and anything negative about their products that they don't like they remove it for no reason. In otherwords, they refuse to look at the criticism with a open mind and instead try to cover it.
6-The iLounge 3rd gen shuffle review had a not recommended rating on their site and as a response apple denied them access to the next event. They are giant manipulators when it comes to 3rd party reviews of their products.
7-While I can't say if it is a music industry issue or apple trying to nickle and dime people, but I thought it was ridiculous that they were charging 30 cents to get DRM files for the early adapters like myself (I had well over 700 songs in DRM format). Essentially making people pay $1.30 for each song while if someone new came to iTunes they could get the song for $1 still. (At the beginning iTunes was still a flat $1 charge).
8-Apple has had SEVERAL display problems (the 27" iMac displays) over the years, once again they attempt to fix these issues with "firmware" updates.
It seems since around 2007 apple has just dropped the ball ethically, since they are on top in several markets they seem to have cared about nothing but getting as much money out of consumers as possible.
Sorry but that is how I view it. I think they make some amazing hardware and I own several iPods and I love every single one of them but I think Apple as a company is pretty shoddy.
more...
wedge antilies
Jul 11, 06:30 PM
The XBox seems to be doing pretty well.
The following is from Gamespot. com
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148512.html?page=3
"But as a result of increased production and marketing costs of the Xbox 360, on which Microsoft currently loses an estimated $126 per unit, its Home and Entertainment division found itself in an unenviable position. Despite the fact the division's quarterly revenue went from $571 million in 2005 to $1.056 billion in all its new income evaporated. Its quarterly operating loss went from $175 million in 2005 to $388 million in 2006."
However with the Games console Microsoft can make money from Game sales and liscensing. Since Apple has already admitted that the iTMS has razor thin profits, they won't be able to duplicate that revenue stream in this area.
The following is from Gamesarefun.com
http://www.gamesarefun.com/gamesdb/editorial.php?editorialid=4
"Since the Xbox launched, the Home and Entertainment Division has seen financial losses approaching $1 billion per year. The losses are $880 million and $990 million per fiscal year, respectively. Add in the $273 million lost in Microsoft's fiscal Q1 (calendar Q3), and $241 million lost in fiscal Q2 (calendar Q4) and we get $2.384 billion lost since the launch of the Xbox".
The argument some people are making is that if Microsoft is willing to put up with losses like this, they can do the same in the "iPod-like" market. However, the markets are truly different in a few ways - a) there is no razor/razorblade economic model b) there are VERY FEW barriers to entry c) The upgrade cycle is MUCH faster.
I think this a threat, but I think Apple may have this covered.
-Red 2.
The following is from Gamespot. com
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148512.html?page=3
"But as a result of increased production and marketing costs of the Xbox 360, on which Microsoft currently loses an estimated $126 per unit, its Home and Entertainment division found itself in an unenviable position. Despite the fact the division's quarterly revenue went from $571 million in 2005 to $1.056 billion in all its new income evaporated. Its quarterly operating loss went from $175 million in 2005 to $388 million in 2006."
However with the Games console Microsoft can make money from Game sales and liscensing. Since Apple has already admitted that the iTMS has razor thin profits, they won't be able to duplicate that revenue stream in this area.
The following is from Gamesarefun.com
http://www.gamesarefun.com/gamesdb/editorial.php?editorialid=4
"Since the Xbox launched, the Home and Entertainment Division has seen financial losses approaching $1 billion per year. The losses are $880 million and $990 million per fiscal year, respectively. Add in the $273 million lost in Microsoft's fiscal Q1 (calendar Q3), and $241 million lost in fiscal Q2 (calendar Q4) and we get $2.384 billion lost since the launch of the Xbox".
The argument some people are making is that if Microsoft is willing to put up with losses like this, they can do the same in the "iPod-like" market. However, the markets are truly different in a few ways - a) there is no razor/razorblade economic model b) there are VERY FEW barriers to entry c) The upgrade cycle is MUCH faster.
I think this a threat, but I think Apple may have this covered.
-Red 2.
zap2
Jul 24, 11:16 AM
50%? Did you forget how much Macs cost? One of the main reasons Dell has such a huge market share is because they are so cost effective and come with great bundles aimed at the average person. 50% of computer users could never afford a Mac.
If Apple can come up with bundles that include a monitor, printer, and scanner while still managing to be priced competitively with Dell then theyd have a chance at Dell level marketshare. Bundling iPods with Macs could be a great program for Apple as well. But they are very far away from offering anything close to what Dell does for that price, and thats what the average person wants (I doubt they are the least bit concerned with Windows, they just want a computer with everything they need).
Apple offers the programs people want, but theyre useless without the hardware to use the programs. They should do more to make it easier for non-computer people to get everything they need at a decent price (unlike shopping through dell.com which gets you good deals on a lot of stuff, shopping through Apple seems to cost more than if you bought the crap seperately)
Many people who buy PC buy pricy ones.. were they could buy a Mac for the price of the Dell/HP/ect
That said i doubt Apple will have 50% of the market in the next few years simply becase that would mean Mac sales would need to up but a ton AND PC sales would be to pretty much stop. Also that would be more then any hardwre maker currently has... look for 10% in the next few years
If Apple can come up with bundles that include a monitor, printer, and scanner while still managing to be priced competitively with Dell then theyd have a chance at Dell level marketshare. Bundling iPods with Macs could be a great program for Apple as well. But they are very far away from offering anything close to what Dell does for that price, and thats what the average person wants (I doubt they are the least bit concerned with Windows, they just want a computer with everything they need).
Apple offers the programs people want, but theyre useless without the hardware to use the programs. They should do more to make it easier for non-computer people to get everything they need at a decent price (unlike shopping through dell.com which gets you good deals on a lot of stuff, shopping through Apple seems to cost more than if you bought the crap seperately)
Many people who buy PC buy pricy ones.. were they could buy a Mac for the price of the Dell/HP/ect
That said i doubt Apple will have 50% of the market in the next few years simply becase that would mean Mac sales would need to up but a ton AND PC sales would be to pretty much stop. Also that would be more then any hardwre maker currently has... look for 10% in the next few years
more...
Eidorian
Nov 3, 11:37 AM
I bought Parallels for $29 + tax after rebate
What rebate? Please elaborate.CompUSA was having a sale on Parallels.
$79 - 10 instant - $20 mail-in = $49
(I made a mistake on my rebate the fist time.)
What rebate? Please elaborate.CompUSA was having a sale on Parallels.
$79 - 10 instant - $20 mail-in = $49
(I made a mistake on my rebate the fist time.)
Socratic
Apr 29, 06:10 PM
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
At the moment the record labels are pretty much Apple's bitch. They don't like that, and in splitting the digital market (by giving a leg up -ie lower costing- to Amazon and probably a few others) they eventually restore their power to set the terms. Apple is a vendor for their product, yet is in almost complete control. That's normally the other way around.
At the moment the record labels are pretty much Apple's bitch. They don't like that, and in splitting the digital market (by giving a leg up -ie lower costing- to Amazon and probably a few others) they eventually restore their power to set the terms. Apple is a vendor for their product, yet is in almost complete control. That's normally the other way around.
more...
SeanZy
Mar 16, 11:07 AM
Ample supply of 64 Verizon at SCP for no, but was told by the mall cop that we were not allowed to "loiter" and he told everyone in the back of the line to leave or we would be forced to leave. Real nice.
--Sean
Dude the South Coast Plaza security are grade A douchebags. They are definitely on a high horse... I guess a lot of people around that area are.
--Sean
Dude the South Coast Plaza security are grade A douchebags. They are definitely on a high horse... I guess a lot of people around that area are.
iCrizzo
Mar 31, 12:09 PM
Looks good to me.
more...
Genetheninja
Apr 28, 11:01 AM
.....About the the mentality of the people who buy a two year old phone just so they can say they have an iPhone.
False! It speaks volumes about how consumers react to the most innovative original and popular smartphone in history being only $50 with a contract.
False! It speaks volumes about how consumers react to the most innovative original and popular smartphone in history being only $50 with a contract.
Glassman
Aug 15, 02:15 PM
Aww, no more blue filling up URL bar in Safari?
I question the same, I liked that a lot, hope it's configurable :( and what about the classical popping sidebars? I don't like the way new Preview handles them inside the window and it seems like this is the way of future, how sad :( I'm not very fond of Mail styled buttons, probably the only Mac design element I don't like very much..
I question the same, I liked that a lot, hope it's configurable :( and what about the classical popping sidebars? I don't like the way new Preview handles them inside the window and it seems like this is the way of future, how sad :( I'm not very fond of Mail styled buttons, probably the only Mac design element I don't like very much..
more...
SkyeHack
Jan 30, 12:55 PM
You're also part of the insanely big spender family if that entire group is your last purchase.
lol, not really.
I couldn't afford the 27 inch Apple Cinema Display.... :'(
I'm envious of those who have it...
lol, not really.
I couldn't afford the 27 inch Apple Cinema Display.... :'(
I'm envious of those who have it...
appleguy123
Jan 25, 10:04 PM
Some books.
http://www.partyopponent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BlindWatchmaker.gifhttp://images.indiebound.com/570/556/9780060556570.jpg
Hope to read them soon.
http://www.partyopponent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BlindWatchmaker.gifhttp://images.indiebound.com/570/556/9780060556570.jpg
Hope to read them soon.
more...
playaj82
Jul 26, 02:21 PM
I still don't have a desire to touch my LCD screen
Unless they can figure something out where that doesn't happen, I'm not impressed.
Unless they can figure something out where that doesn't happen, I'm not impressed.
jsw
Aug 15, 02:28 PM
Hmmm, why would an update of Front Row be deemed top secret...
"Top secret" also probably means "not developed enough to show yet".
I seriously doubt any or many features are actually being withheld to stop MS from implementing them.
"Top secret" also probably means "not developed enough to show yet".
I seriously doubt any or many features are actually being withheld to stop MS from implementing them.
more...
twoodcc
Oct 28, 07:57 AM
I just jumped to 19th place on the team when my bigadv unit was posted. better get that i7 going and figure out the gpu2 problem. (scratches head)
I think we might catch back up to Team Lithuania :D
Nice. Those amd machines add up since you have so many. How do you deal with heat?
Well, I'll hop on the bandwagon. My measly old MBP should be able to cope with it. I'll get my PS3 onto the game as well, just to see how much I can get out of it.
(far out you guys are well equipped)
glad to have you!
I think we might catch back up to Team Lithuania :D
Nice. Those amd machines add up since you have so many. How do you deal with heat?
Well, I'll hop on the bandwagon. My measly old MBP should be able to cope with it. I'll get my PS3 onto the game as well, just to see how much I can get out of it.
(far out you guys are well equipped)
glad to have you!
crazy4apple
Apr 14, 03:49 AM
At this point, waiting another 3 - 5 months for an iPhone 5 would be more prudent than being locked into something so soon before a new device comes out.BL.
What makes you think the iphone 5 will be released in 3-5 months. rumors suggest it could be realeased in Q1 which could mean late OCT or early Nov time frame
I would suggest if you want it get it but if you can hold on then hold on :eek:
What makes you think the iphone 5 will be released in 3-5 months. rumors suggest it could be realeased in Q1 which could mean late OCT or early Nov time frame
I would suggest if you want it get it but if you can hold on then hold on :eek:
seanpholman
Mar 15, 11:05 AM
Kind of a bummer. Just chasing the tail.
--Sean
--Sean
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 10:14 AM
TB isn't redundant right now, it's dormant. The TB port on the MBPs right now is effectively useless until there are peripherals to connect to it. But as this thread demonstrates they are coming. First to the pro market but it will drip down during the course of the year. I think Mac OS X 10.7 and iOS5 are going to provide more urgency for TB in consumer markets as well. WWDC will be the big kick off.
Cool.
First has to be first somehow. ;)
I hope that iOS 5.0 and Mac OS X 10.7 (esp FCP) make TB much more clear to the peripheral makers and to the mass consumer.
Cheers.
Cool.
First has to be first somehow. ;)
I hope that iOS 5.0 and Mac OS X 10.7 (esp FCP) make TB much more clear to the peripheral makers and to the mass consumer.
Cheers.
KnightWRX
Apr 13, 06:42 PM
Read the article and links - it is all there - you continue to refuse to see it. As I stated in my earlier post - not getting into who is correct or who has refuted who - just saying info is out there giving Apple credit for pushing / envisioning / whatever the lightpeak approach.
I see it, I read it, and I read its rebuttal. Hardly something I'd base facts on, like Chuppa was doing. Again, not quite the citation I was looking for. As it stands, I think Chuppa was wrong.
I see it, I read it, and I read its rebuttal. Hardly something I'd base facts on, like Chuppa was doing. Again, not quite the citation I was looking for. As it stands, I think Chuppa was wrong.
kevin2223
May 3, 08:01 AM
27" can power two additional displays:
"You can daisy-chain as many as six devices plus a display. The 27-inch iMac includes a second Thunderbolt port for even more expansion possibilities. Connect up to six more devices or a display or two."
Found under Thunderbolt portion of the Performance page (http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html).
Specs page says "Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to a 30-inch display (2560 by 1600 pixels) on an external display. Support for extended desktop and video mirroring modes," although that is combined on the page for both sizes.
"You can daisy-chain as many as six devices plus a display. The 27-inch iMac includes a second Thunderbolt port for even more expansion possibilities. Connect up to six more devices or a display or two."
Found under Thunderbolt portion of the Performance page (http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html).
Specs page says "Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to a 30-inch display (2560 by 1600 pixels) on an external display. Support for extended desktop and video mirroring modes," although that is combined on the page for both sizes.
jessica.
Jan 26, 10:49 AM
Haha, I don't care, but it would have been nice to keep it going since I did the last 2 and put some work in tracking down old threads and adding up posts etc etc. Whatever.
Really? So even after I PM you and apologize for stepping on toes that I did not know were there you're still going to give me crap? I don't get it. Now, on the note of tracking down old threads, I will add them since it is apparently SOP to have them there. I will likely do it in a while though, I hope that is acceptable to you.
What I truly love is when I take the time to apologize for creating a thread, which is absurd, then that very person continues to brow beat me over the content, format, and apparent creation. If using your logic then you creating the last two stepped on the toes of the one who created the one just before yours. Again, this seems absurd and quite childish.
If this is going to ruin your day then please PM me and ask me to have a mod delete this thread to leave it open for you to create a new one. I don't gain anything by creating a new thread, I just saw the other exceeded 2k posts. Again, this was as innocent as I could possibly get and yet I'm still being **** on by people who apparently have issues with me.
Really? So even after I PM you and apologize for stepping on toes that I did not know were there you're still going to give me crap? I don't get it. Now, on the note of tracking down old threads, I will add them since it is apparently SOP to have them there. I will likely do it in a while though, I hope that is acceptable to you.
What I truly love is when I take the time to apologize for creating a thread, which is absurd, then that very person continues to brow beat me over the content, format, and apparent creation. If using your logic then you creating the last two stepped on the toes of the one who created the one just before yours. Again, this seems absurd and quite childish.
If this is going to ruin your day then please PM me and ask me to have a mod delete this thread to leave it open for you to create a new one. I don't gain anything by creating a new thread, I just saw the other exceeded 2k posts. Again, this was as innocent as I could possibly get and yet I'm still being **** on by people who apparently have issues with me.
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:35 AM
Dave,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий