Snow Leopard on iPad?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Tom Tom on 2 May 2010 18:55 "Michelle Steiner" <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote in message news:michelle-7EDD52.10203801052010(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <tfZCn.120310$Ht4.108216(a)newsfe20.iad>, > "Tom Tom" <ThomasTThomas(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> Erm, no criticism of Apple allowed, old chap. > > Valid criticism is encouraged; bullshit criticism like Larry's and yours > is > derided. I did not criticize anything. Perhaps you should re-read the thread.
From: Steve Hix on 2 May 2010 19:46 In article <RpnDn.167382$sx5.56958(a)newsfe16.iad>, "Tom Tom" <ThomasTThomas(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Michelle Steiner" <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote in message > news:michelle-7EDD52.10203801052010(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > In article <tfZCn.120310$Ht4.108216(a)newsfe20.iad>, > > "Tom Tom" <ThomasTThomas(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> Erm, no criticism of Apple allowed, old chap. > > > > Valid criticism is encouraged; bullshit criticism like Larry's and yours > > is > > derided. > > I did not criticize anything. Perhaps you should re-read the thread. You criticized the majority of participants in this site by implying that they were intolerant, if not flat out bigots. Pull the other one, Princess, it has got bells on it.
From: JF Mezei on 2 May 2010 19:53 Michelle Steiner wrote: > You implicitly did. > What are you implying ?
From: John Slade on 2 May 2010 20:55 On 3/20/2010 11:21 AM, commiebastard wrote: > On Mar 20, 2:16 pm, "OP"<Otto.Phil...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> The iPad runs OSX right? >> Therefore it should run SL. > > Before you get pounced on by the cult of Mac on this board, the short > answer is no. It's not a Leopard install, but a special iPad OS like > the iPhone OS not a Leopard install. Wikipedia says it's a modified version of iPhone OS. John
From: nospam on 3 May 2010 03:06
In article <znu-80F821.02502703052010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > > The difference is what functions the devices can be used for. The iPad > > > can be used for many of the core functions that essentially define > > > desktop computing platforms -- web browsing, e-mail, word processing, > > > spreadsheets, etc. Game consoles can't be used for most of these things.e > > > > The current games consoles can do some of that, but they aren't "computers" > > either. > > They have third-rate web browsers. They're technically *capable* of > doing all of it, but they're not used that way. the playstation can run linux. well, it could before the last update :) > > The one defining function of a true computer is that it can be programmed by > > itself . To program the iPad you of course need to use a Mac computer, so > > the iPad is not a true computer. The iPad is a "device" or "accessory", just > > like a PDA. > > Not really a coherent definition in a world where 99% of users are not > programmers. Also leads to rather odd conclusions in some instances. For > instance, the 128K Mac apparently wasn't a computer.... back then the pundits called the mac 128k a toy, where are the slots., where's lotus 1-2-3, why doesn't it run dos. the same sorts of stupid comments they're saying about the ipad, can't run os x apps, no usb, blah blah. nevertheless, microsoft basic ran on a mac 128k, and macbasic did too, although it was never released officially. there were several third party development environments, but most needed 512k to be useful. some might have run in 128k. |