chrono1081
Apr 5, 10:16 PM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
For the applications, they are all right at your fingertips at the dock or if you want them hidden and want to access them at an instant you can put them in a stack. Think of a stack like the windows start menu, but faster (and it doesn't have to be programs it can be anything).
As for alt+tab and copy and paste people are making it out to be an issue and its not. Use command + tab instead of alt tab, and command + c for copy, and command + v for paste. Its different at first but then you get use to it. I now like command better than control since command is next to the spacebar and is easier to reach.
Also, its perfectly easy to go up file structure levels in Finder, just customize your tool bar (see image)
Anyway I switched from Windows to Mac 3 years ago (because Vista pre service pack 1 couldn't handle large file transfers) and haven't looked back. It was the best move I made (and I fix Windows desktops and servers for a living). Now I can't stand using Windows anymore. I'm much more productive on a Mac.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
For the applications, they are all right at your fingertips at the dock or if you want them hidden and want to access them at an instant you can put them in a stack. Think of a stack like the windows start menu, but faster (and it doesn't have to be programs it can be anything).
As for alt+tab and copy and paste people are making it out to be an issue and its not. Use command + tab instead of alt tab, and command + c for copy, and command + v for paste. Its different at first but then you get use to it. I now like command better than control since command is next to the spacebar and is easier to reach.
Also, its perfectly easy to go up file structure levels in Finder, just customize your tool bar (see image)
Anyway I switched from Windows to Mac 3 years ago (because Vista pre service pack 1 couldn't handle large file transfers) and haven't looked back. It was the best move I made (and I fix Windows desktops and servers for a living). Now I can't stand using Windows anymore. I'm much more productive on a Mac.
Icaras
Apr 21, 04:50 AM
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
I was thinking this as well :D
I was thinking this as well :D
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:38 PM
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?
Moyank24
Mar 26, 01:06 AM
heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society by the stability it provides. Homosexual marriage is only based on love and thus is unstable because things built on only love lack perseverance.
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
paulvee
Oct 26, 08:49 AM
I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?
SandynJosh
May 2, 04:06 PM
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 08:32 PM
Too bad Apple products are few and far between. Want LTE phone? Sorry. Want phone with bigger screen? Sorry. Want computer with USB 3.0 or BluRay? Sorry. I guess you trained yourself not to want anything Steve Jobs does not like. You talk about Apple profits so much, it's likely the more Apple charges you the happier you are.
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
mahonmeister
Oct 25, 10:51 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
And you shall continue to enjoy it. Like Arn has stated, this likely isn't replacing any current configurations, just adding to them.
This seems really exciting. All these cores are gonna pump out some serious power. Now if they could just mash together that processor that IBM made at like 50GHz (I think they cooled it with dry ice or something) with a multi core processor they'd have something! Bring it.
And you shall continue to enjoy it. Like Arn has stated, this likely isn't replacing any current configurations, just adding to them.
This seems really exciting. All these cores are gonna pump out some serious power. Now if they could just mash together that processor that IBM made at like 50GHz (I think they cooled it with dry ice or something) with a multi core processor they'd have something! Bring it.
toddicus
Nov 3, 08:08 AM
I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
8342, 8302, 8312, 8312, 8292, 8292, 8302, 8302... averaging 8307 on AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.4GHz under Windows XP. Will test under FreeBSD and Linux later.
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
8342, 8302, 8312, 8312, 8292, 8292, 8302, 8302... averaging 8307 on AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.4GHz under Windows XP. Will test under FreeBSD and Linux later.
FreeState
Mar 26, 02:03 AM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce.
So why deny gay families this devotion that is needed, the commitment of marriage? Seems your reasoning is based out of malice if you really believe what you said.
Mr-Stabby
Apr 12, 10:28 PM
Does anyone know if the new FC will take AVCHD files natively as Premiere CS5 does?
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
jmadlena
Oct 7, 01:51 PM
Android is gonna take iPhone TO THE GROUND!
It's not a part of your system.
EDIT:
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
I don't see how Google, who licenses Android for free, has a higher profit margin than Apple, who sells the hardware (at a price), and the software (at a price to iPod touch users). I think Apple has higher margins in that aspect.
Google might have indirect revenue sources due to manufacturers licensing Android (ads, etc), but I don't believe there is any direct revenue. I stand to be corrected.
It's not a part of your system.
EDIT:
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
I don't see how Google, who licenses Android for free, has a higher profit margin than Apple, who sells the hardware (at a price), and the software (at a price to iPod touch users). I think Apple has higher margins in that aspect.
Google might have indirect revenue sources due to manufacturers licensing Android (ads, etc), but I don't believe there is any direct revenue. I stand to be corrected.
Sodner
Apr 21, 07:37 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
However, with the little bit of knowledge that I have, my Android phone works just as well FOR ME, and I paid nothing for it.
What, did you steal that too?
Speedy2
Oct 8, 03:46 PM
ya that's why I said "generally", however, Googles main source of revenue is advertising. So all google wants is more and more people with smart phones.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 21, 12:49 PM
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 08:07 AM
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:49 PM
Other than for aeroplanes oil isn't subsidised here in communist Europe - in fact its heavily taxed.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:55 PM
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
lol kidding about nuking it. and yes stem cells are a different story i dont know which post I read.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
lol kidding about nuking it. and yes stem cells are a different story i dont know which post I read.
lilo777
Apr 20, 08:44 PM
Want an LTE phone that can make it through the day? Sorry.
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiMax etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
There is no bugs or any magic there. If the file exists in the file system Windows will show it. Virus removal has nothing to do with it. Malicious files may be hidden in the files saved for restoring older states. "Virus" may be running special processes that keep something in RAM and then restore malicious files if the user removes them. There are all kinds of scenarios but they are not unique to Windows. Before Vista, Windows access right system was messed up but that's the past. There are no viruses in newer versions of Windows anymore.
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiMax etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
There is no bugs or any magic there. If the file exists in the file system Windows will show it. Virus removal has nothing to do with it. Malicious files may be hidden in the files saved for restoring older states. "Virus" may be running special processes that keep something in RAM and then restore malicious files if the user removes them. There are all kinds of scenarios but they are not unique to Windows. Before Vista, Windows access right system was messed up but that's the past. There are no viruses in newer versions of Windows anymore.
thereubster
Nov 3, 04:41 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 01:16 PM
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
While I have no information regarding Greenpeace having a grudge against Apple, I would be interested in knowing how Dell managed a higher ranking.
From an outsiders view, I can't really see the difference, envronmentally speaking. I mean,
Apple computers aren't significantly less efficient than Dell computers. I can't image Dell computers being constructed with significantly different materials than Apple.
Both Apple and Dell use the same defective Sony batteries, etc. etc.
So why is Dell near the top and Apple near the bottom?
It sort of does lean one to speculate that maybe someone in Greenpeace is pissed-off at Apple for popularizing the mp3 player and creating even more landfill havoc.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
While I have no information regarding Greenpeace having a grudge against Apple, I would be interested in knowing how Dell managed a higher ranking.
From an outsiders view, I can't really see the difference, envronmentally speaking. I mean,
Apple computers aren't significantly less efficient than Dell computers. I can't image Dell computers being constructed with significantly different materials than Apple.
Both Apple and Dell use the same defective Sony batteries, etc. etc.
So why is Dell near the top and Apple near the bottom?
It sort of does lean one to speculate that maybe someone in Greenpeace is pissed-off at Apple for popularizing the mp3 player and creating even more landfill havoc.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה