gkhaldi
Oct 23, 12:41 PM
No one will know that until they try installing Windows on a VM.
And, yes, the detection of a VM is simple, given a handful of VM vendors: just look for the VM "hardware" signatures they use. On activation, if any matching hardware is found, pop up a dialog stating "This license of Windows is not applicable to a virtual machine, such as <Parallels or VMWare or Virtual PC>. Activation failed. Please see www.microsoft.com/suckyoudry to enhance your license to allow activation on this virtual machine."
That is precisely what Activation is for: detecting invalid hardware (usually, hardware on which this copy of Windows was not activated, but in thi case also VM hardware) and stopping full use of the product on it. We can't say for certain that they will do this until it happens or someone from MS breaks the code of silence regarding this issue. But they certainly have the means to do it.
If this is true, why did Microsoft used to sell me Virtual PC with a version of XP Pro? I could clone that instance of XP Pro also several times and run them in // (altough very slow since emulated):confused: :confused:
And, yes, the detection of a VM is simple, given a handful of VM vendors: just look for the VM "hardware" signatures they use. On activation, if any matching hardware is found, pop up a dialog stating "This license of Windows is not applicable to a virtual machine, such as <Parallels or VMWare or Virtual PC>. Activation failed. Please see www.microsoft.com/suckyoudry to enhance your license to allow activation on this virtual machine."
That is precisely what Activation is for: detecting invalid hardware (usually, hardware on which this copy of Windows was not activated, but in thi case also VM hardware) and stopping full use of the product on it. We can't say for certain that they will do this until it happens or someone from MS breaks the code of silence regarding this issue. But they certainly have the means to do it.
If this is true, why did Microsoft used to sell me Virtual PC with a version of XP Pro? I could clone that instance of XP Pro also several times and run them in // (altough very slow since emulated):confused: :confused:
VirtualRain
Apr 4, 03:24 PM
http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v23/p250652679-4.jpg
cslewis
Jul 24, 09:35 PM
How about a proto-telepathic interface? :cool:
steveh
Apr 12, 02:23 PM
Wouldn't matter anyway if you were using a ThunderBolt external hard drive. Very few mechanical hard drives can even reach 1Gbps-2Gbps. You'll need several of the fastest SSDs in RAID to even reach ThunderBolt speeds.
USB 3.0 FTW. More practical.
This week, mostly. In a year or three?
Don't forget that ThunderBolt can support USB x, as well as several other connection standards, including DisplayPort, hence any display connection standard that you can drive through it.
USB 3.0 FTW. More practical.
This week, mostly. In a year or three?
Don't forget that ThunderBolt can support USB x, as well as several other connection standards, including DisplayPort, hence any display connection standard that you can drive through it.
more...
fisty
Nov 3, 09:07 PM
Elegant post but sheesh!
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/
Yeah it already is.
indeed it has :D
just created iso image from the xp sp2 cd i have lieing around.. never seen xp installing so fast lol
tho still a bit bumpy as its a private beta...no **** its bumpy lol
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/
Yeah it already is.
indeed it has :D
just created iso image from the xp sp2 cd i have lieing around.. never seen xp installing so fast lol
tho still a bit bumpy as its a private beta...no **** its bumpy lol
Full of Win
Apr 24, 10:13 PM
whats not to say someone just changed the carrier name? I don't own an iphone but I did search and its totally possible.
There is more to this than the carrier tag.
I don't see a reason apple would need to create an iPhone for T-Mobile if the AT&T plan goes through. If it's rejected than maybe thats a reason then to possibly go on T-Mobile.
As noted in this thread... adding an extra band opens oter networks besides TM. Also, if purchased, TM cannot flick a switch on all their towers to make them at&t compliant.
There is more to this than the carrier tag.
I don't see a reason apple would need to create an iPhone for T-Mobile if the AT&T plan goes through. If it's rejected than maybe thats a reason then to possibly go on T-Mobile.
As noted in this thread... adding an extra band opens oter networks besides TM. Also, if purchased, TM cannot flick a switch on all their towers to make them at&t compliant.
more...
alphaod
Nov 29, 04:31 AM
I want one of these (which I can probably do without):
Nikon 24mm f/1.4
http://alphaod.com/pics/mr02/mr_24f14-112910.png
But I would really like one of these:
Nikon TC-17E II teleconverter
http://alphaod.com/pics/mr02/mr_tc17e-112910.png
I could definitely use it to increase the focal length of my telephoto and only sacrificing 1.5 f-stops.
Nikon 24mm f/1.4
http://alphaod.com/pics/mr02/mr_24f14-112910.png
But I would really like one of these:
Nikon TC-17E II teleconverter
http://alphaod.com/pics/mr02/mr_tc17e-112910.png
I could definitely use it to increase the focal length of my telephoto and only sacrificing 1.5 f-stops.
MrSmith
Apr 12, 10:23 AM
I'll take iPhoto non-crap again first, then a new iPhone.
more...
Acerone
Apr 13, 07:36 PM
You can have this white news. For me it's all about the iPhone 5.
lafemmme
Feb 1, 01:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKxv1W-DH5D7UqETI6QigLNiWiew9G1PpPLPZ4x8EouxwxnboEaMj35cDWQqOuANx7aaJfSXHUQFvfzDDR1qN8FZByrPPSCZTH16wWQI42iiJKzJSdkPsHY5i1BjS77CrxaO6OOZmmc_M/s400/24HourFitnessApprovedLogo.jpg
Back to being a gym rat, just signed up with 24.
Back to being a gym rat, just signed up with 24.
more...
shawnce
Dec 1, 05:01 PM
/Applications/Utilites/Directory Access.app/ -> AppleTalk is checked.
That is different then having AppleTalk active on a network connection.
That is different then having AppleTalk active on a network connection.
SuperCachetes
Dec 31, 10:48 PM
...God, not religion...
I'll be honest: I don't know what the heck that even means.
...I read every post and I understood them all...
No. You didn't. I am not judging her, and there are many here who aren't. I merely want all people to be accountable for their impact on society. For example, you are probably more healthy than I am. That's awesome. I truly hope you have the ability to pay lower insurance premiums than me. Why would I begrudge you that - I outweigh you by 50 lbs, and smoked for 25 years. But I'll tell you one thing - I run 15 miles a week now, trying to reclaim every last smidgen of lung capacity I can find. And, I've dropped 15 pounds in the last 6 weeks. And all just because I know I should. Think of how great it would be if there was financial incentive, to boot!
...my argument is not that she isn't a liability. It's that no one here has a right to decide where the line is between what lifestyle is so selfish that it is your personal concern.
Please stop assuming there is a "line." It can be a sliding scale. "Healthiness" can be measured with a variety of metrics (BMI, blood pressure, blood chemistry, etc) and there is no reason that numbers compared to numbers have to be judgmental. It doesn't have to be "healthy" vs. "unhealthy." That said, countless government agencies and private groups have decided what qualifies as "obese." The info is out there. People blow it off because there are no repercussions, no liability one way or the other.
I would argue that accepting a lifestyle that has a much higher likelihood of illness or death doesn't necessarily mean mental illness. What about adventure seekers? Is climbing Everest a sign of mental illness? The likelihood of dying is high, and honestly, some would say that you have to be crazy to do it, but people still praise the behavior, and don't label the person with a mental illness.
Agreed.
Guys, it really is possible that she just LOVES food. I've met people like that. They are great chefs and are very over weight because they love food. Not because they have some kind of mental deficiency.
I really LOVE alcohol. I have been known to drink three bottles of wine, a half-bottle of whiskey, or a twelve-pack of beer in an evening. I don't do it to get drunk, I just really like the stuff. Are you cool with chipping in for my liver transplant? :cool:
I'll be honest: I don't know what the heck that even means.
...I read every post and I understood them all...
No. You didn't. I am not judging her, and there are many here who aren't. I merely want all people to be accountable for their impact on society. For example, you are probably more healthy than I am. That's awesome. I truly hope you have the ability to pay lower insurance premiums than me. Why would I begrudge you that - I outweigh you by 50 lbs, and smoked for 25 years. But I'll tell you one thing - I run 15 miles a week now, trying to reclaim every last smidgen of lung capacity I can find. And, I've dropped 15 pounds in the last 6 weeks. And all just because I know I should. Think of how great it would be if there was financial incentive, to boot!
...my argument is not that she isn't a liability. It's that no one here has a right to decide where the line is between what lifestyle is so selfish that it is your personal concern.
Please stop assuming there is a "line." It can be a sliding scale. "Healthiness" can be measured with a variety of metrics (BMI, blood pressure, blood chemistry, etc) and there is no reason that numbers compared to numbers have to be judgmental. It doesn't have to be "healthy" vs. "unhealthy." That said, countless government agencies and private groups have decided what qualifies as "obese." The info is out there. People blow it off because there are no repercussions, no liability one way or the other.
I would argue that accepting a lifestyle that has a much higher likelihood of illness or death doesn't necessarily mean mental illness. What about adventure seekers? Is climbing Everest a sign of mental illness? The likelihood of dying is high, and honestly, some would say that you have to be crazy to do it, but people still praise the behavior, and don't label the person with a mental illness.
Agreed.
Guys, it really is possible that she just LOVES food. I've met people like that. They are great chefs and are very over weight because they love food. Not because they have some kind of mental deficiency.
I really LOVE alcohol. I have been known to drink three bottles of wine, a half-bottle of whiskey, or a twelve-pack of beer in an evening. I don't do it to get drunk, I just really like the stuff. Are you cool with chipping in for my liver transplant? :cool:
more...
carlgo
Oct 1, 08:51 AM
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 24, 03:23 AM
Their are many factors why this is true and I will list the them in order of which ones I think are the most important.
1. The people who will jump to any carrier just to have the iPhone will, and have done so in the last four years. Those people have iPhones already. They are not likely to pay 100-300 dollars to break contract go to T-Mo then pay another 200$ for an iphone with contract.
2. Android: Yes I have to say it but it is true. People feel less of a need for an iphone when they can get android Phones cheaper. Also people are being lured in by many of android's commercials that make the phones look so good. When a T-mobile customer sees a commercial for a thunderbolt they want that phone. They end up getting a High end phone on network. It is even getting more popular on the iPhone networks, AT&T for the most part ignored the android because it had the iPhone. Then after millions of customers came into the stores demanding not iPhones but Androids AT&T had to reconsider. Face it android is changing the game. People are seeing the android as less of an alternative to iPhones if you can't afford it or not on your carrier but more as a real iphone beater.
Yeah it will not help if they where to obtain the iPhone. But for the most part it will not make a huge difference to them. Also Verizon did not need apple to put the iPhone on the its network, Apple needed to Put its iPhone on Verizons network. Verizon's droid line was becoming a major threat to iPhones.'
In all it will help T-mobile to get the iPhone as much as me getting into a steady relationship: It will help but it will not change things in the long run.
1. The people who will jump to any carrier just to have the iPhone will, and have done so in the last four years. Those people have iPhones already. They are not likely to pay 100-300 dollars to break contract go to T-Mo then pay another 200$ for an iphone with contract.
2. Android: Yes I have to say it but it is true. People feel less of a need for an iphone when they can get android Phones cheaper. Also people are being lured in by many of android's commercials that make the phones look so good. When a T-mobile customer sees a commercial for a thunderbolt they want that phone. They end up getting a High end phone on network. It is even getting more popular on the iPhone networks, AT&T for the most part ignored the android because it had the iPhone. Then after millions of customers came into the stores demanding not iPhones but Androids AT&T had to reconsider. Face it android is changing the game. People are seeing the android as less of an alternative to iPhones if you can't afford it or not on your carrier but more as a real iphone beater.
Yeah it will not help if they where to obtain the iPhone. But for the most part it will not make a huge difference to them. Also Verizon did not need apple to put the iPhone on the its network, Apple needed to Put its iPhone on Verizons network. Verizon's droid line was becoming a major threat to iPhones.'
In all it will help T-mobile to get the iPhone as much as me getting into a steady relationship: It will help but it will not change things in the long run.
more...
Moyank24
May 1, 09:08 PM
I get sucked into nothingness, and the game goes to He**.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
SurfSpirit
Mar 31, 10:39 AM
Mac OS and iOS is different things, it seems Apple is loosing that idea, where's the unification OS? Can you imagine how ugly and mess it's going to work with apps each one with different looks and feels, at least we wll get fullscreen single apps, or maybe not, well, more and more Ubuntu seems a better OS
more...
Rodimus Prime
Apr 29, 02:57 PM
can anyone tell me why this market is so important? even at .99 cents a song the margins for the retailer can't be that much.
well per song not much but it adds up fast. Even if Amazon and Apple only bring in 10-15 cents per song at .99 cents per song. That adds up fast.
Between Amazon and Apple I like Amazon better. Plus I get like 10 bucks a year in free song from Amazon for text books I buy threw them. It is a nice bonus and I can promise you doing that little give away has pushed me to buy more text books from Amazon proving they are the same price as lets say B&N or the campus book store but often times Amazon is the cheapest and I am running on my free Amazon Prime for student member ship 2 day shipping to boot.
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
depends on the song what Apple and Amazon pays.
But as for the explain why Amazon would get a lower price. Record company hate the control Apple has and they are trying to break it and chances are Amazon has other options for those same record company to sell products threw them. like CD and if they owned or own other companies that sell complete different products like Sony which sells TV, dvd players ect.
well per song not much but it adds up fast. Even if Amazon and Apple only bring in 10-15 cents per song at .99 cents per song. That adds up fast.
Between Amazon and Apple I like Amazon better. Plus I get like 10 bucks a year in free song from Amazon for text books I buy threw them. It is a nice bonus and I can promise you doing that little give away has pushed me to buy more text books from Amazon proving they are the same price as lets say B&N or the campus book store but often times Amazon is the cheapest and I am running on my free Amazon Prime for student member ship 2 day shipping to boot.
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
depends on the song what Apple and Amazon pays.
But as for the explain why Amazon would get a lower price. Record company hate the control Apple has and they are trying to break it and chances are Amazon has other options for those same record company to sell products threw them. like CD and if they owned or own other companies that sell complete different products like Sony which sells TV, dvd players ect.
igirlca
Apr 14, 03:12 PM
wrong forum
iDrinkKoolAid
Jul 10, 09:53 AM
As a frequent user of Pages 2, I would like more toolbars and less of the 'inspector' stuff, which to me is not as convenient.
mrelwood
Apr 14, 10:07 AM
I think you are all wrong. On the BMW model names "ix" stands for a fuel injection engine and four-wheel drive. I believe there is an OS M coming for certain BMW models.
0815
Apr 26, 12:22 PM
You wouldn't consider paying $20 per YEAR?
I'm amazed how people always expect to get everything for free ... they want to have the best of the best without paying anything because the think they just 'deserve' it ...
Hell, why would you assume they are not charging for it?
The usual pattern is to get some small teaser for free (either time limited or small storage amount) to get you hooked and when you like it you pay for it. [Just like I got hooked on the free dropbox and now pay for the 100GB plan because I love it so much]
And seriously: $20/year is almost free.
I'm amazed how people always expect to get everything for free ... they want to have the best of the best without paying anything because the think they just 'deserve' it ...
Hell, why would you assume they are not charging for it?
The usual pattern is to get some small teaser for free (either time limited or small storage amount) to get you hooked and when you like it you pay for it. [Just like I got hooked on the free dropbox and now pay for the 100GB plan because I love it so much]
And seriously: $20/year is almost free.
boodyup
Apr 26, 12:27 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously, can you do anything without Apple getting their cut? It seems odd that you would buy music from them then have to pay to store it. It's like earning your paycheck after income and state tax are taken out and then buying something with the money and getting charged sales tax on it.
Seriously, can you do anything without Apple getting their cut? It seems odd that you would buy music from them then have to pay to store it. It's like earning your paycheck after income and state tax are taken out and then buying something with the money and getting charged sales tax on it.
Rowbear
Apr 11, 08:03 PM
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG8150-merle/1246861263_F5DmP-X2.jpg
ProfessorApple
Apr 28, 12:29 PM
They can always try.
Please can we have some rumors abour iOS5 maybe?
Nice!
Please can we have some rumors abour iOS5 maybe?
Nice!
No comments:
Post a Comment