darkplanets
Apr 29, 03:42 PM
I noticed on an aforementioned wikipedia page that Samba was removed...
Does this mean I cannot connect to a linux server via smb:// ???
Not everything is a windows workgroup... :(
I mean I guess it's not a huge deal since I can ssh in, but I liked mounting it as a volume from finder.
Does this mean I cannot connect to a linux server via smb:// ???
Not everything is a windows workgroup... :(
I mean I guess it's not a huge deal since I can ssh in, but I liked mounting it as a volume from finder.
localoid
May 3, 03:12 PM
Two points...
(1) I just checked, and I find that I can still download the app "Wireless Tether" (which only works on rooted phones) on Market.
(2) But since there's an even better app on Market -- that enables tethering on my non-rooted Android phone -- I wouldn't care all that much if "Wireless Tether" wasn't available.
(1) I just checked, and I find that I can still download the app "Wireless Tether" (which only works on rooted phones) on Market.
(2) But since there's an even better app on Market -- that enables tethering on my non-rooted Android phone -- I wouldn't care all that much if "Wireless Tether" wasn't available.
iJohnHenry
Apr 16, 05:08 PM
Yes, I do believe Merriam Webster is still up and running...
This is no value to me, if you consider your position to be narrow-mind, and not an abomination, sorry...., affront.
This is no value to me, if you consider your position to be narrow-mind, and not an abomination, sorry...., affront.
dethmaShine
Apr 13, 06:13 AM
My experience has been the exact opposite with the Mac, whether its trying to access a share on one of my other computers (my wife uses a PC) or accessing network resources on my work's network.
When in windows 7 it "just worked" I had no need to mess with eth0, drivers or any manually set up a network. I was able to connect to the resource and use it. Also it was much faster.
It has always been the same with the mac. Just go to the finder and look for shared computers.
OR
Taskbar: 'Go To Server/Computer'
OR
ssh/ftp > prostuff-not required
I had issues with OSX, that I was unable to access any shared files from my wife's computer. Accessing my work stuff was a bit easier but was SLOW, painfully slow. I pull up a folder with a couple hundred files, and I can easily sit there for well over 10 minutes while OSX does it thing. Windows, just a couple of minutes.
Report bugs. Are you comparing b/w OSX <-> Windows and Windows <-> Windows?
Networking is where windows has a clear advantage of OSX, in part because many (most?) enterprise networks are windows based, at least from my experience.
You are confusing stuff.
Given the design of windows, there's zero chance of that, it would require a complete rewrite and the folks at MS really don't see the design of windows being flawed. Especially since they see the marketshare being what it is - kind of like why fix it if it isn't broke mentality.
Fair enough.
When in windows 7 it "just worked" I had no need to mess with eth0, drivers or any manually set up a network. I was able to connect to the resource and use it. Also it was much faster.
It has always been the same with the mac. Just go to the finder and look for shared computers.
OR
Taskbar: 'Go To Server/Computer'
OR
ssh/ftp > prostuff-not required
I had issues with OSX, that I was unable to access any shared files from my wife's computer. Accessing my work stuff was a bit easier but was SLOW, painfully slow. I pull up a folder with a couple hundred files, and I can easily sit there for well over 10 minutes while OSX does it thing. Windows, just a couple of minutes.
Report bugs. Are you comparing b/w OSX <-> Windows and Windows <-> Windows?
Networking is where windows has a clear advantage of OSX, in part because many (most?) enterprise networks are windows based, at least from my experience.
You are confusing stuff.
Given the design of windows, there's zero chance of that, it would require a complete rewrite and the folks at MS really don't see the design of windows being flawed. Especially since they see the marketshare being what it is - kind of like why fix it if it isn't broke mentality.
Fair enough.
more...
tvachon
Jan 9, 01:49 PM
Darn, I expected to come home from school and have it be there. :P I'm not going to be tempted to check any sites or do anything where there might be a spoiler. I think this will be a good time to practice piano & do homework. :)
Question: When did the keynote end? Was it 11 PM EST or PST? If it was PST, that would mean the keynote only ended 44 minutes ago (about). :eek:
Edit: MR is being really slow right now for me.
It ended 2:00pm EST
Question: When did the keynote end? Was it 11 PM EST or PST? If it was PST, that would mean the keynote only ended 44 minutes ago (about). :eek:
Edit: MR is being really slow right now for me.
It ended 2:00pm EST
goober1223
Apr 6, 09:38 AM
And what was the motivation of the third party app makers? To make a fast buck out of serving ads to people more interested in the ad than the product. That is bad for advertisers and probably the real reason the app was rejected.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
more...
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 01:56 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more.
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 09:47 PM
MW2's plot wasn't too ludicrous. You infiltrate a Russian terrorist cell, you're commanding officer betrays you, starts a war between the US and Russia. The only ludicrous part that I can remember is a nuke blowing apart the ISS.
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
more...
maxdet
Aug 12, 04:06 PM
The official reason for the price drop was to meet dell prices or get close to them. To what extent could Apple have dropped their display prices to come back a little later with a new model with new features (built-in iSight, better specs or any new crazy thing like an integrated coffee machine) that would justify more expencive models.
I know it sounds crazy but it came to my mind and seemed quite possible after all.
your opinion?
I know it sounds crazy but it came to my mind and seemed quite possible after all.
your opinion?
ccrandall77
Aug 1, 10:07 AM
I seriously don't understand why people and countries have a problems with Apple's DRM???? You don't have to buy from iTunes and if you do, you know the limitations of that download. If you don't like it, buy elsewhere... iTunes is hardly a monopoly... besides, wouldn't you rather have the CD so you can rip it into a lossless format, have the CD sleeve, etc.???
I've purchased a lot off of iTunes and then I bought an Archos PMP. Ya it sucked that I couldn't play my iTunes music on there without burning it to CD and re-ripping it, but so what! I knew what I was getting when I downloaded from iTunes so I have no right to bitch.
I've purchased a lot off of iTunes and then I bought an Archos PMP. Ya it sucked that I couldn't play my iTunes music on there without burning it to CD and re-ripping it, but so what! I knew what I was getting when I downloaded from iTunes so I have no right to bitch.
more...
prady16
Sep 12, 08:28 AM
damn..
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
If not today, we could see an MB/MBP update sometime after Sep 16th when the free ipod nano promo expires. That's my best guess, but even i am hoping desperately for the update to happen today!
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
If not today, we could see an MB/MBP update sometime after Sep 16th when the free ipod nano promo expires. That's my best guess, but even i am hoping desperately for the update to happen today!
dalvin200
Sep 12, 04:42 AM
would be but were on BST (GMT+1) matey.
its a 5PM GMT start
so using your formula above 5PM + 1 = 6PM BST :)
its a 5PM GMT start
so using your formula above 5PM + 1 = 6PM BST :)
more...
arn
Jan 5, 11:19 AM
we can set this up...
stay tuned.
arn
stay tuned.
arn
thejadedmonkey
Apr 13, 03:00 PM
Windows PCs with enabled File Sharing (or whatever they call it, that new confusing Homegroup with a code or password or something) show up in Finder's sidebar. "It just works".
Oh how I wish it were so. For the last year or so, I haven't had ANY windows PC show up in my finder's sidebar, except my girlfriend's Dell (go figure) which has 0 shared folders, and my desktop... after it's turned off- but never while it's on.
It's actually really pathetic. When Leopard first game out, and I was trying to use a new Mac Mini in a networked PC environment, Apple's level II technicians told me to return it, and buy one in a few months when they had worked out the bugs.
Oh how I wish it were so. For the last year or so, I haven't had ANY windows PC show up in my finder's sidebar, except my girlfriend's Dell (go figure) which has 0 shared folders, and my desktop... after it's turned off- but never while it's on.
It's actually really pathetic. When Leopard first game out, and I was trying to use a new Mac Mini in a networked PC environment, Apple's level II technicians told me to return it, and buy one in a few months when they had worked out the bugs.
more...
Chrispy
Sep 25, 01:17 PM
I�m loving the amout of sarcasm in this thread� I was afraid it would not be picked up. This is a good update to the software and free is even better.
I do, however, think people are just tired of waiting for new macbook pros. Apple really does need to get on that update if they are going to justify charging $1999+ for the notebook.
I do, however, think people are just tired of waiting for new macbook pros. Apple really does need to get on that update if they are going to justify charging $1999+ for the notebook.
jive
Sep 12, 07:23 AM
http://static.flickr.com/90/241460253_3bb2758deb_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/corbtt/241460253/)
Click to see it...
Click to see it...
more...
MattyMac
Oct 10, 06:48 PM
Yeah, Apple isn't going to sit back and let Zune steal its lunch!
Agreed!
So please please please let it be:D
Agreed!
So please please please let it be:D
ThePoach
Jul 21, 04:21 PM
So if another car company was hiding the same problem Toyota had, and Toyota pointed it out, that would be wrong? Why are the other companies denying it?
Yes it would.. maybe that is why Toyota was able to surpass all these claims, assuming most of them were real since everyone is trying to make a quick buck these days lol. They dealt with their own problems and I would buy a Toyota any day:)
Question for you Hovey.. Are you working for Apple????
Is that you Mr. Jobs, answering questions again? lol
Yes it would.. maybe that is why Toyota was able to surpass all these claims, assuming most of them were real since everyone is trying to make a quick buck these days lol. They dealt with their own problems and I would buy a Toyota any day:)
Question for you Hovey.. Are you working for Apple????
Is that you Mr. Jobs, answering questions again? lol
jessica.
Apr 14, 07:51 AM
Not really to keep stuff safe in the event of a robbery, but to keep a few things safe in the event of some other disaster.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91z7iRZnXQL._AA1500_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91z7iRZnXQL._AA1500_.jpg
whiteyanderson
Dec 15, 03:35 AM
I'm a Verizon user and am dying for an iPhone but, AT&T just isn't reliable enough where I live (L.A.). AT&T worked fine for me in Texas when I had them but, as soon as I moved out here, there were too many dead spots and dropped calls. To be honest, I think all the carriers fundamentally suck in principle, I'm just forced to use the one that gives me reliable service.
My question is if AT&T's exclusivity indeed DOESN'T expire until 2012, then what's the deal with the lack of AT&T iPhone commercials on TV these days? There was a time, not so long ago, when it seemd like every other TV commercial was AT&T whoring the iPhone. Now, it seems like I never see iPhone ads on TV and AT&T is touting every other phone EXCEPT the iPhone.
My question is if AT&T's exclusivity indeed DOESN'T expire until 2012, then what's the deal with the lack of AT&T iPhone commercials on TV these days? There was a time, not so long ago, when it seemd like every other TV commercial was AT&T whoring the iPhone. Now, it seems like I never see iPhone ads on TV and AT&T is touting every other phone EXCEPT the iPhone.
Lancetx
Oct 6, 04:53 PM
Obviously YMMV, but I've never had any significant issues at all with AT&T's service in the nearly 2 1/2 years since I switched to them for the original iPhone. The same has continued since I upgraded to the 3GS as well. Verizon doesn't have the iPhone and won't be getting it anytime soon (if ever), so they're not on my radar screen anyway. And even if they did ever add the iPhone at some point, I doubt I'd ever switch because my own personal experience with Verizon's service several years ago was that it was absolutely dreadful.
Demosthenes X
Nov 14, 02:34 PM
Been playing Zombie mode all weekend... it's really frustrating without a mic, though, since I can't communicate and everyone seems to be doing their own thing. Need to be able to talk to collaborate and get to the higher rounds, I think.
That said, it's super-addicting. Nothing relieves stress like blasting Zombies. :D
I haven't made it into the Multiplayer yet. The last few times I've tried the servers haven't been responding... I've had an easier time getting on the servers to play Zombies, though...
Single player campaign is pretty typical of COD, imo. It's pretty good... If anything, though, this game is encouraging me to go buy World at War for half the price and just play Zombies. Hah!
That said, it's super-addicting. Nothing relieves stress like blasting Zombies. :D
I haven't made it into the Multiplayer yet. The last few times I've tried the servers haven't been responding... I've had an easier time getting on the servers to play Zombies, though...
Single player campaign is pretty typical of COD, imo. It's pretty good... If anything, though, this game is encouraging me to go buy World at War for half the price and just play Zombies. Hah!
rhett7660
Apr 21, 02:41 PM
Sorry, this idea is horrible. People are going to downrate posts because they disagree with someone's opinion, not because it's a bad post.
I can easily see the fanboys downrating anyone who mentions Microsoft, Android or any of Apple's competitors in a positive light.
I think you meant this can both ways. Some will mention Apple products and there are a select few who will vote negative....
I can easily see the fanboys downrating anyone who mentions Microsoft, Android or any of Apple's competitors in a positive light.
I think you meant this can both ways. Some will mention Apple products and there are a select few who will vote negative....
maflynn
Apr 11, 01:43 PM
umm my computer from 2004 could run Windows 8 (slowly but it could) because it does have a 64 bit processor in it. I also believe W8 is going to be 64 bit only. W7 was the last 32 bit OS.
As it should at this point, 64bit processors have been out long enough that this shouldn't be a problem.
Those people who still have 32bit processors are generally not the type of people who will be upgrading to w8 anyways.
As it should at this point, 64bit processors have been out long enough that this shouldn't be a problem.
Those people who still have 32bit processors are generally not the type of people who will be upgrading to w8 anyways.
No comments:
Post a Comment