Prev: Preview cant open and display images
Next: scanning txt
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 15:00
In article <michelle-C3F183.12535708032010(a)nothing.attdns.com>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:

> > > The iPad software is not "for the most part the same".
> >
> > then how is it that almost all of the existing 150,000 apps run on it
> > without any modification?
>
> The question is not whether iPhone software will run on the iPad, but
> whether iPad software will run on the iPhone.

ipad software uses new features in 3.2 and takes advantage of a larger
screen (hardware). it's exactly the same as software written to use the
new features in 10.6 won't run in 10.5 or 10.4.
From: nospam on 8 Mar 2010 18:46
In article <jollyroger-9DFC27.17283208032010(a)news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote:

> > > The software is significantly different.
> >
> > it isn't.
>
> Except it IS, according to Mossberg.

so why does apple still call it iphone os? why is the version number
only .1 higher than what's on the iphone and not ipad os 1.0? why can
existing apps run unmodified? why is mossberg the arbiter of what the
iphone os is? is he on the development team at apple now? has he
written any apps?

> Considering he's actually had his
> hands on an iPad for months, and you haven't as much as touched one, I'm
> calling bullshit on you.

using an ipad doesn't change a thing. i've used the sdk and am very
familiar with which parts are the same and which parts are different.

as i said, there are some new things in 3.2, just as there were new
things in 3.x over 2.x.

you've said nothing more than 'mossberg said it's different, so there.'

> > > Apple's changed many
> > > applications on the iPad to be more like desktop applications. And it's
> > > doubtful they would be able to function the same or have the same
> > > features on an iPhone.
> >
> > that's mainly because the screen is too small.
>
> So you admit the software is different.

byte for byte, yes it's different. is that the basis of your claim?
you're grasping at straws.

> BTW, I don't care why it's different.

you don't care about much of anything other than being right.

> You've admitted you were wrong. Good job.

i did no such thing.

> I'm talking about the default Apple software, idiot.

if you are going to resort to insults, this discussion is over.
From: nospam on 9 Mar 2010 01:00
In article <michelle-BEE1F3.20045008032010(a)nothing.attdns.com>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:

> If the next version of mail.app for the Mac, for instance, used separate
> windows for the folder list, subject list, and message content, rather than
> all being in panes in the same window, wouldn't that make it significantly
> different from the current mail.app?

i don't use apple mail, but is safari 4 significantly different than
safari 3? they added top sites and moved some things around, that's
about it. iphoto '09 added places and faces, the rest is pretty much
the same. hardly what i'd call significant, but ymmv.
From: nospam on 9 Mar 2010 03:10
In article <slrnhpbviu.1j9t.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> The software is significantly different.
>
> > it isn't.
>
> followed by
>
> > as i said before, quite a bit of what's new in 3.2
>
> Well, make up your bloody mind, Either it's differnet or it's not, you
> can't have it both ways.

read it again. i said it's not significantly different. that means
there are some differences but they're not major.

> >> The iPad software is not "for the most part the same".
>
> > then how is it that almost all of the existing 150,000 apps run on it
> > without any modification?
>
> Because it's all OS X underneath and Apple decided to allow the iphone
> apps to run on the iPad. Apple *could* decide to allow iphone apps to
> run on the iMac too, and they would.

they could, but it would be a shitload of effort and there's very
little point in doing so.
From: nospam on 9 Mar 2010 04:07
In article <slrnhpc330.1j9t.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> Because it's all OS X underneath and Apple decided to allow the iphone
> >> apps to run on the iPad. Apple *could* decide to allow iphone apps to
> >> run on the iMac too, and they would.
>
> > they could, but it would be a shitload of effort and there's very
> > little point in doing so.
>
> It would be practically no effort whatsoever. It's OS X all the way
> down.

and an entirely different cpu.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: Preview cant open and display images
Next: scanning txt