Member since: Jul 24th, 2006
Jan 27th 2009 9:57PM Just so you know, it's UK and USA only. So the other 95% of us don't get excited just yet.
Aug 23rd 2007 10:27PM The judge should have given him a break.Surely he was going down an extremely steep hill with a gail force tailwind.
Jul 23rd 2007 11:55PM All this program did was nag me to register, constantly. The macro function would not work at all.Does anyone know of an alternative? Automator seems deserately limited, and Applescript is rediculously complicated.
Jan 23rd 2007 5:10PM I like the idea of navigating through files without clicking. Unfortunately Fly-Over Mode didn't really work on my iBook, and the app as a whole was quite sluggish compared to Finder.It wastes a lot of screen real-estate at the top of the screen.I hope it improves. I'd like to see it working properly.
Jan 23rd 2007 9:17AM I agree with JD, both about the lack of fullscreen in quicktime, and NicePlayer being the ultimate alternative. The lack of fullscreen mode in Quicktime seems to be solely there to force more people to buy the Pro.As far as charging for bootcamp, well Apple may as well. Anyone who is going to buy a legit windows license on top of the cost of their Mac is hardly going to worry about an extra $19 thrown into the equation.It's all moot, I gather. Bootcamp will be part of Leopard and anyone that wants it may as well upgrade their OS.
Jan 16th 2007 5:55AM Actually it makes sense it's just a switch.If it actually did contain an accelerometer, you could just stick it in your sock or something. Using a switch makes it necessary for the special hole in the Nike's sole, or the abovementioned hacks for your own shoe.
Oct 23rd 2006 6:02PM Apple should be able to build an iSync style feature without the need for any third party server, i.e. .Mac.I suspect that it is iSync keeping .Mac alive, and I think it's appalling that this feature cannot be accessed by every Mac user with 2 Macs. If Apple had never created .Mac, I'm sure that they would have created a serverless syncing feature in OSX. Instead they artificially restrict this to a slowly dying online service because they know its about the only thing keeping it alive.I also know the profit margins that Apple dealers make on .Mac, and I can tell you that Apple should cut out the middle-men and sell .Mac directly for less than half the price it is now. And if they made it more reasonably priced, they could offer a 6-monthly auto-renewal subscription and take the 'big decision' away by making it easier to stay with .Mac.
Sep 18th 2006 12:41AM frogbat: "When working with pro apps that have a tonne of palettes each, it's too easy to miss them and switch to an underlying app or desktop"I'm with you... the number of times i've gone to click a scroll bar near the edge of the screen and instead actually selected the application underneath... The first few times this happened I freaked.Anyway, my other comments can be found at the original post.
Jul 24th 2006 9:19PM 'we all know how that turned out...'Yes, Apple still make desktop computers and IBM don't.Whilst the PC may have won the majority of desktop seats, the fact is that Apple are still in business selling computer for individuals and IBM are not.IBM created a platform based on standard OEM parts that was easy for other manufacturers to copy, and by an accident of history was the first manufacturer of this now ubiquitous platform. That hardly makes them a lasting success in the field.It will be good to see some proper competition to the iPod which is a much overhyped device and could do with a shake-up. (And before any iPod worshippers complain, I have 2 myself, and the only reason I have them is not because they are so great, but because the competition isn't)
Save your tabs and Panorama tab groups in Firefox 4
Amazon Appstore for Android hands-on review: Android Market is in trouble