or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by malax

Not happy with the new tabs or the combined URL/search box either.  One nice thing about the old, orderly every-tab-the-same-size layout was the ability to close, say, three of 5 tabs with three clicks (without a mouse move).  Now you have to hunt for the (invisible) close boxes.  Just inelegant.  Maybe, perhaps, I'll get used to the combined address/search box, but I'm pretty old school and would have preferred to keep them distinct.   And I still don't know what...
  According to page 20 of http://movies.apple.com/media/us/osx/2012/server/docs/OSXServer_Product_Overview.pdf it's not command line any more. 
Right, but Charlituna was just saying that download size isn't part of the pricing equation.  And your post supports that: XCode is huge and it's free.
Thanks.  That's what I thought, and I figured it was worth calling that out for people like me who never seriously considered buying the server software before.  Now it's almost too good to be true.  
How is ARD different from the remote connect option that's already part of OS X?  Is that what's needed to create new remote sessions rather than just hijacking the current session (which REALLY freaks my kids out).
Was it always just $20?  OS X Server looks like a great deal now, even if you just use it for the Time Machine feature.  My kids and I have 4 Macs in active use and two of them aren't backed up regularly.  I can just pay $20 for this, turn on the Time Machine server option, point the other three Macs to the one acting as the server and I'm covered.  That's a lot cheaper than buying some networked backup appliance.   Am I missing something?
I have 3 or 4 Macs that I'll upgrade to Snow Lion or whatever it's called,  Remind me if there is any way to do that without having each computer download the installer independently?  Seems more than a little inefficient (and may interfere with my kids' Minecraft and Skype obsessions).
It seems to me that there are two types of patent violations (or IP violations in general): one where the offending party sees something the protected party does and copies it and one where the "offending" party creates something that turns out to be covered by someone else's patent.  I believe it's the latter that that Carmack was complaining about in his famous quote.  I'm sure that happens all the time, and it speaks to the fact that oftentimes the bar for what should...
  According to your logic, one is only "allowed" to hate something if it affects them directly?     Warlords in Africa?  No problem, doesn't affect me directly.     Racism?  Nah, I'm white.     Child abusers?  I'm not a child, what's the big deal.   In my book it's perfectly fine to be disgusted with, or even "hate," people (and organizations) that behave in detestable ways.  I'm sure you'll sleep easier now :-)
Can you imagine how SJ would have reacted to this?   If I were Apple I would include in the "statement" a picture of the two devices side by side along with the date they were introduced.  "According to the [insert name of the court here] the Samsung device shown here that came out a year after the iPad is not a copy of the iPad.  They've instructed us to tell you that.  Have a nice day."
New Posts  All Forums: