Snow Leopard on iPad?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: JF Mezei on 3 May 2010 03:14 ZnU 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 Apple flavoured Kool Aid: The iPad can be used for the core functions that essentially define smart phones platforms. It has a user interface better suited to mobile computing compared to operating systems for desktops. Thus it has applications which are better suited to a mobile user interface.
From: ZnU on 3 May 2010 03:34 In article <030520100306524660%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > 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 > :) Sure. And if you install Ubuntu on one and use it as a computer, then it is a computer. > > > 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. You can write an execute JavaScript right on an iPad, if you'd like... it's about the same sort of thing. > there were several third party development environments, but most > needed 512k to be useful. some might have run in 128k. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: Warren Oates on 3 May 2010 08:24 In article <znu-942B17.02325203052010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > And if you stop watching and pick up later, you have to do it again, > because they also disabled auto-resume. (Actually, a large number of > Blu-rays do that, for no reason I can fathom.) > > How did any of this seem like a good idea to anyone? Blu-ray and DVD are different standards. I imagine the remote-control stuff is similar though. There are reasons why you might not want the viewer to access certain buttons. The big greedy corporations misuse the standard to suit their own nasty purposes; what else is new? -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Warren Oates on 3 May 2010 10:53 In article <siegman-44236C.06240903052010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > And any DVD players sold in the U.S. __must__ by Federal law build this > un-over-ridable capability into the player, is that not true . . . ??? > (If this is not true, I'll stand corrected.) > > And if it's true, how did this requirement get into Federal law? I don't think that's true. The DVD standard goes back too far, and the user restrictions have always been part of it. Like I said, it's a good idea for some things (kiosk stuff, say), but subject to misuse. Hmm. The 2nd Amendment comes to mind. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Jim Gibson on 3 May 2010 14:21
In article <siegman-44236C.06240903052010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > > > That's still just part of the DVD standard, and it always has been. No > > > government has mandated that standard. You can disable any part of the > > > remote for any menu or track you want, or for the whole disc. The > > > copyright holders choose to disable the remote for the duration of the > > > FBI stuff. > > > > > > And if you stop watching and pick up later, you have to do it again, > > because they also disabled auto-resume. (Actually, a large number of > > Blu-rays do that, for no reason I can fathom.) > > > > How did any of this seem like a good idea to anyone? > > And any DVD players sold in the U.S. __must__ by Federal law build this > un-over-ridable capability into the player, is that not true . . . ??? > (If this is not true, I'll stand corrected.) > > And if it's true, how did this requirement get into Federal law? No, that is not true. Please see my post earlier in this thread (4/30, 3:12 pm PDT). The thing that is illegal is circumventing the DRM access to the content. -- Jim Gibson |