Well, Think about it! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Actually, I haven't thought about it in detail either.
In, the mainframe days, I could read core dumps with the best of them. I wrote a FIOS for the IBM 1301 and some IBM/BTAM crap for typewriter terminals and early IBM 2260 Display Terminals.
But the only stuff I've done at that level, recently, is JailBreak an AppleTV 1 to support Internet video streaming (with help from Erica Sadun), and then JailBreak and futz around with an iPhone gen 1.
I don't understand the significance of @wizard69's "This actually brings up an interesting question about Mac OS, can one telnet or secure shell log into a Mac in its base configuration. "
Though, I am sure that did both when fiddling with JailBroken iOS on the AppleTV and iPhone. So, I suspect that, with the proper setup, Mac OS X can be accessed this way..
The interactive graphical app is the big question.
Though, that could be mitigated in several ways:
-- greater WiFi bandwidth in the hardware
-- intelligent video compression ala h264 OS to OS
-- companion App on Mac to App on iPad.
In fact I am using VNC from an iPad to run Motion on an original Intel iMac 17 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, 2 GB RAM, ATI RadeonX1600 GPU.
When playing a simple Motion Project there is about a 2-second latency... not too bad
On my iMac 24 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI,RadeonHD2600 GPU
I routinely open 5 Screen Sharing windows to update software or transfer files. This works pretty good, even with quite a bit else running on the imac 24. One of these Macs is a Mini attached to an HDTV as a 1080P shared screen.
Also, we periodically stream movies from another Mini Media Library to 2 or 3 Macs, iPads or the AppleTV.
I think what I am saying is that there is a whole lot of Video going back and forth and it seems to work pretty well -- even though the hardware and OS are not designed for this.
.
I haven't programed for a good 12 years, so I'm a bit iffy on some of this. I suppose the underlying UNIX is multi user, and may allow simultaneous functionality. Video streaming multiple streams doesn't come under that heading, I don't think. But, yeah, the desktop doesn't allow for it, and I doubt that HFS+ does either.
This is a huge change in strategy for Microsoft where forced bundling has been the strategy for... well, forever! It also represents a significant shift in revenue. I'm sure they are making up for it with the cloud deal - or are they? And even if they are, at best they are breaking even/treading water. Not very inspiring.
With Apple squeezing them on the mobile front, and Google squeezing them on the desktop, Microsoft must really be feeling the pressure (or at least I hope they are! Time to get competitive MS!)
It's just another example of MS losing some of its clout. Several years ago, that couldn't have happened.
You're telling me that you use an older version, and so when a newbie sends you a file in the newest format, you can't open it? If that's so, it's odd to me, because it never would have occurred to me to not upgrade all our software as upgrades came out. Has that changed in the industry as a whole? some people upgrading, and others not? Then the industry HAS changed. A few years ago, we ALL upgraded.
I thought we were talking about PS, not InDesign.
It's not like I stay in my coffin for months at a time. I have plenty of contacts still, and I still go to the various conventions and shows.
Many magazines send us emails saying do not send files in CS4 as we are only supposing CS3, forget that the current version is CS5. Fortunately they usually accept PDF as PFX. Even so you are looking at thousands of dollars to upgrade for no net gain in productivity just to pay Adobe's tax on professional publishing.
Many magazines send us emails saying do not send files in CS4 as we are only supposing CS3, forget that the current version is CS5. Fortunately they usually accept PDF as PFX. Even so you are looking at thousands of dollars to upgrade for no net gain in productivity just to pay Adobe's tax on professional publishing.
I suppose it must be a sign of the recession, which started in 2007, and is lingering. I don't remember many of my clients holding back so long on upgrading.
You're telling me that you use an older version, and so when a newbie sends you a file in the newest format, you can't open it? If that's so, it's odd to me, because it never would have occurred to me to not upgrade all our software as upgrades came out. Has that changed in the industry as a whole? some people upgrading, and others not? Then the industry HAS changed. A few years ago, we ALL upgraded.
I thought we were talking about PS, not InDesign.
It's not like I stay in my coffin for months at a time. I have plenty of contacts still, and I still go to the various conventions and shows.
It happens. I freelance for a mid-sized agency in San Francisco a lot and they skipped CS4 altogether. So for the period where I was on CS4 and they were still on CS3 I had to back-save my files into INX format. There's nothing particularly difficult about working with those files. The only oddity is that when the file is opened in CS3 is is converted, so it doesn't have a natural "save path." If you click save, it won't, of course, save over the INX file rather it will ask you to name a new file. For a short time I was actually in CS5 while they were on CS3. THAT was a pain in the butt because I had to keep a version and license for CS4 active just to save the file backwards twice.
I personally upgrade my Suite each version because I have access to the employee pricing for the apps though people I know. If I had to pay for the upgrade myself I would have skipped CS4 as well as it didn't seem to add that much to the equation.
Well, Think about it! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Actually, I haven't thought about it in detail either.
In, the mainframe days, I could read core dumps with the best of them. I wrote a FIOS for the IBM 1301 and some IBM/BTAM crap for typewriter terminals and early IBM 2260 Display Terminals.
But the only stuff I've done at that level, recently, is JailBreak an AppleTV 1 to support Internet video streaming (with help from Erica Sadun), and then JailBreak and futz around with an iPhone gen 1.
Interesting as I was thinking about jailbreaking the new Apple TV. It is basically a very nice $100 computer that could make for a very nice embedded platform. Get Linux to run on the platform and I don't see Apple being able to keep them on the shelf. Unfortunately it looks like the jailbreak/unlock is a bit slow in coming.
Quote:
I don't understand the significance of @wizard69's "This actually brings up an interesting question about Mac OS, can one telnet or secure shell log into a Mac in its base configuration. "
The question is basically this can one remotely log into the client version of Mac OS. This I haven't tried but it would require that the right servers be running.
Quote:
Though, I am sure that did both when fiddling with JailBroken iOS on the AppleTV and iPhone. So, I suspect that, with the proper setup, Mac OS X can be accessed this way..
you could have been using a client program to access the Apple TV. It is my understanding that one has to install server software on the iDevice to communicate this way. Again have not jailbroken or unlocked any of my "I" devices so I don't know the specifics.
Quote:
The interactive graphical app is the big question.
I don't think A
Quote:
Though, that could be mitigated in several ways:
-- greater WiFi bandwidth in the hardware
-- intelligent video compression ala h264 OS to OS
-- companion App on Mac to App on iPad.
In fact I am using VNC from an iPad to run Motion on an original Intel iMac 17 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, 2 GB RAM, ATI RadeonX1600 GPU.
When playing a simple Motion Project there is about a 2-second latency... not too bad
On my iMac 24 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI,RadeonHD2600 GPU
I routinely open 5 Screen Sharing windows to update software or transfer files. This works pretty good, even with quite a bit else running on the imac 24. One of these Macs is a Mini attached to an HDTV as a 1080P shared screen.
Also, we periodically stream movies from another Mini Media Library to 2 or 3 Macs, iPads or the AppleTV.
I think what I am saying is that there is a whole lot of Video going back and forth and it seems to work pretty well -- even though the hardware and OS are not designed for this.
Well, Think about it! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Actually, I haven't thought about it in detail either.
In, the mainframe days, I could read core dumps with the best of them. I wrote a FIOS for the IBM 1301 and some IBM/BTAM crap for typewriter terminals and early IBM 2260 Display Terminals.
But the only stuff I've done at that level, recently, is JailBreak an AppleTV 1 to support Internet video streaming (with help from Erica Sadun), and then JailBreak and futz around with an iPhone gen 1.
Interesting as I was thinking about jailbreaking the new Apple TV. It is basically a very nice $100 computer that could make for a very nice embedded platform. Get Linux to run on the platform and I don't see Apple being able to keep them on the shelf. Unfortunately it looks like the jailbreak/unlock is a bit slow in coming.
Quote:
I don't understand the significance of @wizard69's "This actually brings up an interesting question about Mac OS, can one telnet or secure shell log into a Mac in its base configuration. "
The question is basically this can one remotely log into the client version of Mac OS. This I haven't tried but it would require that the right servers be running.
Quote:
Though, I am sure that did both when fiddling with JailBroken iOS on the AppleTV and iPhone. So, I suspect that, with the proper setup, Mac OS X can be accessed this way..
you could have been using a client program to access the Apple TV. It is my understanding that one has to install server software on the iDevice to communicate this way. Again have not jailbroken or unlocked any of my "I" devices so I don't know the specifics.
Quote:
The interactive graphical app is the big question.
I don't think Apple supports this directly but I thought at one time somebody was offering up a remote app. The problem was it was a remote viewing of the currently logged on account.
Interestingly Linux supports this well. At least in the sense of multiple users Obviosly the iPad is not in play here.
Quote:
Though, that could be mitigated in several ways:
-- greater WiFi bandwidth in the hardware
-- intelligent video compression ala h264 OS to OS
-- companion App on Mac to App on iPad.
You see this is where I see your idea falling apart. It makes far more sense for apps to be on the iPad especially when iPad 2 hits and it hopefully eliminates iPad 1's shortcomings. If the aPp on the iPad does the job why bother connecting to a companion on the Mac? Instead let a stationary machine become a server.
The biggest problem here would be getting the iPads to associate with individual accounts on the Mac. That is file sharing and syncing need to be handled on the users own account on the Mac. A common or public account would be needed also.
In any event I don't see a huge need to run apps remotely. Especially with the rapidly expanding app store and likewise the rapidly expanding capabilities of iOS. In Apple terms the Mac becomes your HUB.
Quote:
In fact I am using VNC from an iPad to run Motion on an original Intel iMac 17 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, 2 GB RAM, ATI RadeonX1600 GPU.
Sounds like you are half way there. The question is are you logged into a different account than the person at the Mac. Or are you simply accessing an app that is already running on the Mac? Frankly I don't see myself wanting to run Mac apps on the iPad for extended lengths anyways.
[quote]
When playing a simple Motion Project there is about a 2-second latency... not too bad
On my iMac 24 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI,RadeonHD2600 GPU
I routinely open 5 Screen Sharing windows to update software or transfer files. This works pretty good, even with quite a bit else running on the imac 24. One of these Macs is a Mini attached to an HDTV as a 1080P shared screen.
Also, we periodically stream movies from another Mini Media Library to 2 or 3 Macs, iPads or the AppleTV.
I think what I am saying is that there is a whole lot of Video going back and forth and it seems to work pretty well -- even though the hardware and OS are not designed for this.
[quote]
on the contrary this is pretty much what UNIX was designed for. That is why there is so much in the way of communications and networking software available for UNIX platforms.
The difference today is that with the vastly improved hardware sending a video file some where is no big deal.
Quote:
.
Still I wonder why you would want to run so many apps remotely. It just makes more sense to use local apps as much as possible. There are issues of course, in a way what Apple needs is a "local.me" like behavior. That is support iPad attachment to local Mac accounts over the network. Effectively the iPad would be kept synced to that account as well as the mobile.me account. This actually sounds like the commonly asked for capability of WiFi syncing. It is only extended a bit to support other features.
This is not a trivial issue though as security and other issue would have to be dealt with. Given that though access to your local Mac account, wether or not you are the current Mac user would be very useful. Sort of like a local cloud server, maybe we should call it the fog.
It's just another example of MS losing some of its clout. Several years ago, that couldn't have happened.
Actually, they've wanted software subscriptions for a while. This deal just made Google Apps non-competitive at a rate of $6/month for the low end user while protecting their recurring revenue stream...high end users cost $27/month. And it lives on NYC servers, not MS cloud servers which probably makes both MS and NYC happier.
Plus, given LA's problems with Google I dunno that MS was under significant pressure anyway.
Most large companies have a enterprise site license anyway.
MS is moving to the cloud even for the edu market as well. Live@edu was deployed in Kentucky to 700K users. Partly to counter free Google Apps but this isn't a huge revenue generation market anyway but more of a strategic arena where everyone tends to provide huge discounts and often even donations.
"The deployment is not only one of the largest in the world, but also one of the fastest, Microsoft says. The state reportedly moved more than half a million people from some 180 distributed Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 on-site servers to Live@edu during a single weekend. The rapid migration helped minimize disruption and gave users faster access to new technologies, such as Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, which powers Live@edu?s cloud-based eMail service."
If the NYC deployment goes as smoothly as the Kentucky then the appeal of Google Apps is likely not much better than moving your enterprise to OpenOffice (or whatever dumb name it has now).
Actually, they've wanted software subscriptions for a while. This deal just made Google Apps non-competitive at a rate of $6/month for the low end user while protecting their recurring revenue stream...high end users cost $27/month. And it lives on NYC servers, not MS cloud servers which probably makes both MS and NYC happier.
Plus, given LA's problems with Google I dunno that MS was under significant pressure anyway.
Most large companies have a enterprise site license anyway.
MS is moving to the cloud even for the edu market as well. Live@edu was deployed in Kentucky to 700K users. Partly to counter free Google Apps but this isn't a huge revenue generation market anyway but more of a strategic arena where everyone tends to provide huge discounts and often even donations.
"The deployment is not only one of the largest in the world, but also one of the fastest, Microsoft says. The state reportedly moved more than half a million people from some 180 distributed Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 on-site servers to Live@edu during a single weekend. The rapid migration helped minimize disruption and gave users faster access to new technologies, such as Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, which powers Live@edu?s cloud-based eMail service."
If the NYC deployment goes as smoothly as the Kentucky then the appeal of Google Apps is likely not much better than moving your enterprise to OpenOffice (or whatever dumb name it has now).
I don't know. There are over 8 million regular users of Google Docs. Somewhat less than 3 million for MS. What this means, I don't know.
I don't know. There are over 8 million regular users of Google Docs. Somewhat less than 3 million for MS. What this means, I don't know.
Is there a reason you're replying on threads from last year? Just curious.
Google Docs is interesting but frankly, I would think most major enterprise users prefer to self host and keep their data on their own machines.
Just like for Apple, the number of users isn't quite as important as the demographic of the users. If the majority of the 3M MS users are enterprise and the 8M of Google users are individual then MS is doing better IMHO.
Comments
Well, Think about it! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Actually, I haven't thought about it in detail either.
In, the mainframe days, I could read core dumps with the best of them. I wrote a FIOS for the IBM 1301 and some IBM/BTAM crap for typewriter terminals and early IBM 2260 Display Terminals.
But the only stuff I've done at that level, recently, is JailBreak an AppleTV 1 to support Internet video streaming (with help from Erica Sadun), and then JailBreak and futz around with an iPhone gen 1.
I don't understand the significance of @wizard69's "This actually brings up an interesting question about Mac OS, can one telnet or secure shell log into a Mac in its base configuration. "
Though, I am sure that did both when fiddling with JailBroken iOS on the AppleTV and iPhone. So, I suspect that, with the proper setup, Mac OS X can be accessed this way..
The interactive graphical app is the big question.
Though, that could be mitigated in several ways:
-- greater WiFi bandwidth in the hardware
-- intelligent video compression ala h264 OS to OS
-- companion App on Mac to App on iPad.
In fact I am using VNC from an iPad to run Motion on an original Intel iMac 17 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, 2 GB RAM, ATI RadeonX1600 GPU.
When playing a simple Motion Project there is about a 2-second latency... not too bad
On my iMac 24 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI,RadeonHD2600 GPU
I routinely open 5 Screen Sharing windows to update software or transfer files. This works pretty good, even with quite a bit else running on the imac 24. One of these Macs is a Mini attached to an HDTV as a 1080P shared screen.
Also, we periodically stream movies from another Mini Media Library to 2 or 3 Macs, iPads or the AppleTV.
I think what I am saying is that there is a whole lot of Video going back and forth and it seems to work pretty well -- even though the hardware and OS are not designed for this.
.
I haven't programed for a good 12 years, so I'm a bit iffy on some of this. I suppose the underlying UNIX is multi user, and may allow simultaneous functionality. Video streaming multiple streams doesn't come under that heading, I don't think. But, yeah, the desktop doesn't allow for it, and I doubt that HFS+ does either.
Oh, there is no refuge for Microsoft in Office.
This is from a story about Microsoft and New York City entering a new cloud computing deal:
This is a huge change in strategy for Microsoft where forced bundling has been the strategy for... well, forever! It also represents a significant shift in revenue. I'm sure they are making up for it with the cloud deal - or are they? And even if they are, at best they are breaking even/treading water. Not very inspiring.
With Apple squeezing them on the mobile front, and Google squeezing them on the desktop, Microsoft must really be feeling the pressure (or at least I hope they are! Time to get competitive MS!)
It's just another example of MS losing some of its clout. Several years ago, that couldn't have happened.
You're telling me that you use an older version, and so when a newbie sends you a file in the newest format, you can't open it? If that's so, it's odd to me, because it never would have occurred to me to not upgrade all our software as upgrades came out. Has that changed in the industry as a whole? some people upgrading, and others not? Then the industry HAS changed. A few years ago, we ALL upgraded.
I thought we were talking about PS, not InDesign.
It's not like I stay in my coffin for months at a time. I have plenty of contacts still, and I still go to the various conventions and shows.
Many magazines send us emails saying do not send files in CS4 as we are only supposing CS3, forget that the current version is CS5. Fortunately they usually accept PDF as PFX. Even so you are looking at thousands of dollars to upgrade for no net gain in productivity just to pay Adobe's tax on professional publishing.
Many magazines send us emails saying do not send files in CS4 as we are only supposing CS3, forget that the current version is CS5. Fortunately they usually accept PDF as PFX. Even so you are looking at thousands of dollars to upgrade for no net gain in productivity just to pay Adobe's tax on professional publishing.
I suppose it must be a sign of the recession, which started in 2007, and is lingering. I don't remember many of my clients holding back so long on upgrading.
You're telling me that you use an older version, and so when a newbie sends you a file in the newest format, you can't open it? If that's so, it's odd to me, because it never would have occurred to me to not upgrade all our software as upgrades came out. Has that changed in the industry as a whole? some people upgrading, and others not? Then the industry HAS changed. A few years ago, we ALL upgraded.
I thought we were talking about PS, not InDesign.
It's not like I stay in my coffin for months at a time. I have plenty of contacts still, and I still go to the various conventions and shows.
It happens. I freelance for a mid-sized agency in San Francisco a lot and they skipped CS4 altogether. So for the period where I was on CS4 and they were still on CS3 I had to back-save my files into INX format. There's nothing particularly difficult about working with those files. The only oddity is that when the file is opened in CS3 is is converted, so it doesn't have a natural "save path." If you click save, it won't, of course, save over the INX file rather it will ask you to name a new file. For a short time I was actually in CS5 while they were on CS3. THAT was a pain in the butt because I had to keep a version and license for CS4 active just to save the file backwards twice.
I personally upgrade my Suite each version because I have access to the employee pricing for the apps though people I know. If I had to pay for the upgrade myself I would have skipped CS4 as well as it didn't seem to add that much to the equation.
Well, Think about it! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Actually, I haven't thought about it in detail either.
In, the mainframe days, I could read core dumps with the best of them. I wrote a FIOS for the IBM 1301 and some IBM/BTAM crap for typewriter terminals and early IBM 2260 Display Terminals.
But the only stuff I've done at that level, recently, is JailBreak an AppleTV 1 to support Internet video streaming (with help from Erica Sadun), and then JailBreak and futz around with an iPhone gen 1.
Interesting as I was thinking about jailbreaking the new Apple TV. It is basically a very nice $100 computer that could make for a very nice embedded platform. Get Linux to run on the platform and I don't see Apple being able to keep them on the shelf. Unfortunately it looks like the jailbreak/unlock is a bit slow in coming.
I don't understand the significance of @wizard69's "This actually brings up an interesting question about Mac OS, can one telnet or secure shell log into a Mac in its base configuration. "
The question is basically this can one remotely log into the client version of Mac OS. This I haven't tried but it would require that the right servers be running.
Though, I am sure that did both when fiddling with JailBroken iOS on the AppleTV and iPhone. So, I suspect that, with the proper setup, Mac OS X can be accessed this way..
you could have been using a client program to access the Apple TV. It is my understanding that one has to install server software on the iDevice to communicate this way. Again have not jailbroken or unlocked any of my "I" devices so I don't know the specifics.
The interactive graphical app is the big question.
I don't think A
Though, that could be mitigated in several ways:
-- greater WiFi bandwidth in the hardware
-- intelligent video compression ala h264 OS to OS
-- companion App on Mac to App on iPad.
In fact I am using VNC from an iPad to run Motion on an original Intel iMac 17 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, 2 GB RAM, ATI RadeonX1600 GPU.
When playing a simple Motion Project there is about a 2-second latency... not too bad
On my iMac 24 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI,RadeonHD2600 GPU
I routinely open 5 Screen Sharing windows to update software or transfer files. This works pretty good, even with quite a bit else running on the imac 24. One of these Macs is a Mini attached to an HDTV as a 1080P shared screen.
Also, we periodically stream movies from another Mini Media Library to 2 or 3 Macs, iPads or the AppleTV.
I think what I am saying is that there is a whole lot of Video going back and forth and it seems to work pretty well -- even though the hardware and OS are not designed for this.
.
Well, Think about it! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Actually, I haven't thought about it in detail either.
In, the mainframe days, I could read core dumps with the best of them. I wrote a FIOS for the IBM 1301 and some IBM/BTAM crap for typewriter terminals and early IBM 2260 Display Terminals.
But the only stuff I've done at that level, recently, is JailBreak an AppleTV 1 to support Internet video streaming (with help from Erica Sadun), and then JailBreak and futz around with an iPhone gen 1.
Interesting as I was thinking about jailbreaking the new Apple TV. It is basically a very nice $100 computer that could make for a very nice embedded platform. Get Linux to run on the platform and I don't see Apple being able to keep them on the shelf. Unfortunately it looks like the jailbreak/unlock is a bit slow in coming.
I don't understand the significance of @wizard69's "This actually brings up an interesting question about Mac OS, can one telnet or secure shell log into a Mac in its base configuration. "
The question is basically this can one remotely log into the client version of Mac OS. This I haven't tried but it would require that the right servers be running.
Though, I am sure that did both when fiddling with JailBroken iOS on the AppleTV and iPhone. So, I suspect that, with the proper setup, Mac OS X can be accessed this way..
you could have been using a client program to access the Apple TV. It is my understanding that one has to install server software on the iDevice to communicate this way. Again have not jailbroken or unlocked any of my "I" devices so I don't know the specifics.
The interactive graphical app is the big question.
I don't think Apple supports this directly but I thought at one time somebody was offering up a remote app. The problem was it was a remote viewing of the currently logged on account.
Interestingly Linux supports this well. At least in the sense of multiple users Obviosly the iPad is not in play here.
Though, that could be mitigated in several ways:
-- greater WiFi bandwidth in the hardware
-- intelligent video compression ala h264 OS to OS
-- companion App on Mac to App on iPad.
You see this is where I see your idea falling apart. It makes far more sense for apps to be on the iPad especially when iPad 2 hits and it hopefully eliminates iPad 1's shortcomings. If the aPp on the iPad does the job why bother connecting to a companion on the Mac? Instead let a stationary machine become a server.
The biggest problem here would be getting the iPads to associate with individual accounts on the Mac. That is file sharing and syncing need to be handled on the users own account on the Mac. A common or public account would be needed also.
In any event I don't see a huge need to run apps remotely. Especially with the rapidly expanding app store and likewise the rapidly expanding capabilities of iOS. In Apple terms the Mac becomes your HUB.
In fact I am using VNC from an iPad to run Motion on an original Intel iMac 17 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, 2 GB RAM, ATI RadeonX1600 GPU.
Sounds like you are half way there. The question is are you logged into a different account than the person at the Mac. Or are you simply accessing an app that is already running on the Mac? Frankly I don't see myself wanting to run Mac apps on the iPad for extended lengths anyways.
[quote]
When playing a simple Motion Project there is about a 2-second latency... not too bad
On my iMac 24 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI,RadeonHD2600 GPU
I routinely open 5 Screen Sharing windows to update software or transfer files. This works pretty good, even with quite a bit else running on the imac 24. One of these Macs is a Mini attached to an HDTV as a 1080P shared screen.
Also, we periodically stream movies from another Mini Media Library to 2 or 3 Macs, iPads or the AppleTV.
I think what I am saying is that there is a whole lot of Video going back and forth and it seems to work pretty well -- even though the hardware and OS are not designed for this.
[quote]
on the contrary this is pretty much what UNIX was designed for. That is why there is so much in the way of communications and networking software available for UNIX platforms.
The difference today is that with the vastly improved hardware sending a video file some where is no big deal.
.
Still I wonder why you would want to run so many apps remotely. It just makes more sense to use local apps as much as possible. There are issues of course, in a way what Apple needs is a "local.me" like behavior. That is support iPad attachment to local Mac accounts over the network. Effectively the iPad would be kept synced to that account as well as the mobile.me account. This actually sounds like the commonly asked for capability of WiFi syncing. It is only extended a bit to support other features.
This is not a trivial issue though as security and other issue would have to be dealt with. Given that though access to your local Mac account, wether or not you are the current Mac user would be very useful. Sort of like a local cloud server, maybe we should call it the fog.
It's just another example of MS losing some of its clout. Several years ago, that couldn't have happened.
Actually, they've wanted software subscriptions for a while. This deal just made Google Apps non-competitive at a rate of $6/month for the low end user while protecting their recurring revenue stream...high end users cost $27/month. And it lives on NYC servers, not MS cloud servers which probably makes both MS and NYC happier.
Plus, given LA's problems with Google I dunno that MS was under significant pressure anyway.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google...to-cloud/37152
Most large companies have a enterprise site license anyway.
MS is moving to the cloud even for the edu market as well. Live@edu was deployed in Kentucky to 700K users. Partly to counter free Google Apps but this isn't a huge revenue generation market anyway but more of a strategic arena where everyone tends to provide huge discounts and often even donations.
"The deployment is not only one of the largest in the world, but also one of the fastest, Microsoft says. The state reportedly moved more than half a million people from some 180 distributed Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 on-site servers to Live@edu during a single weekend. The rapid migration helped minimize disruption and gave users faster access to new technologies, such as Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, which powers Live@edu?s cloud-based eMail service."
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/06/0...-school-users/
If the NYC deployment goes as smoothly as the Kentucky then the appeal of Google Apps is likely not much better than moving your enterprise to OpenOffice (or whatever dumb name it has now).
Actually, they've wanted software subscriptions for a while. This deal just made Google Apps non-competitive at a rate of $6/month for the low end user while protecting their recurring revenue stream...high end users cost $27/month. And it lives on NYC servers, not MS cloud servers which probably makes both MS and NYC happier.
Plus, given LA's problems with Google I dunno that MS was under significant pressure anyway.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google...to-cloud/37152
Most large companies have a enterprise site license anyway.
MS is moving to the cloud even for the edu market as well. Live@edu was deployed in Kentucky to 700K users. Partly to counter free Google Apps but this isn't a huge revenue generation market anyway but more of a strategic arena where everyone tends to provide huge discounts and often even donations.
"The deployment is not only one of the largest in the world, but also one of the fastest, Microsoft says. The state reportedly moved more than half a million people from some 180 distributed Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 on-site servers to Live@edu during a single weekend. The rapid migration helped minimize disruption and gave users faster access to new technologies, such as Microsoft Exchange Server 2010, which powers Live@edu?s cloud-based eMail service."
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/06/0...-school-users/
If the NYC deployment goes as smoothly as the Kentucky then the appeal of Google Apps is likely not much better than moving your enterprise to OpenOffice (or whatever dumb name it has now).
I don't know. There are over 8 million regular users of Google Docs. Somewhat less than 3 million for MS. What this means, I don't know.
I don't know. There are over 8 million regular users of Google Docs. Somewhat less than 3 million for MS. What this means, I don't know.
Is there a reason you're replying on threads from last year? Just curious.
Google Docs is interesting but frankly, I would think most major enterprise users prefer to self host and keep their data on their own machines.
Just like for Apple, the number of users isn't quite as important as the demographic of the users. If the majority of the 3M MS users are enterprise and the 8M of Google users are individual then MS is doing better IMHO.