|
|
No - it clearly states that the MacBook Air (13-inch, Early 2015) only supports windows 8 64 bit.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm setting up a Macbook
It just works. 
Once you lose your pride the rest is easy.
In the end, only three things matter: how much you loved, how gently you lived, and how gracefully you let go of things not meant for you. – Buddha
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that like riding a bicycle in a bus on a bumpy road to Kandahar?
|
|
|
|
|
But Mac users don't need any other version of Windows. Must be true because Apple has decreed it.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was Apple policy to ONLY support the current version, backward compatibility - phooy
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I use Parallels[^]. Still got my Windows 7 and holding out for 10!
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
What??? Are you kidding me? Apple is the most evil of them all.
They fail to get the phone right, so they expect you to buy a new one every six months. 
They tell you their phone is better than the rest. But it only has one button and the others have 3 buttons at the bottom. So clearly the others are 3 times better.
They take a Nano, strap it to your wrist and tell you its a smart watch and charge you 5 times the amount. 
They sell you a laptop, call it a MacBook and charge 5X the price of a laptop. And then the people who buy these install a Windows VM. Why not run Windows in the first place??? I digress.
I've seen Satan's car. Or at least it was a red Volkswagon beetle that had "Satan" vanity plates, and yes you guessed it... an Apple logo sticker on the back. 
And remember, what got Adam and Eve thrown out of the garden. Oh yes... an Apple.
So yes. Apple is evil.
|
|
|
|
|
What society has come to ... without actuality actually
modified 18-Mar-15 16:44pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would take all of this as, "Big words". If you read the content to the end, you will find, "humans will live to be 500-years-old". If you can do it... Do it! If can't, don't market your products in a way that tomorrow you can't fulfill your promise.
Anyways, if that cancer thing works... I'm going to fear less things in my life. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
That would be really nice on a google watch ...
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
All this kind of patent achieves is to prevent the people who could actually achieve their aims from doing anything:
"I know I can cure cancer with a gadget that you strap to your wrist, but I can't build it, because google has a blanket patent for something that they can't make and have no idea how to make".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting point: do you know this to be the case? That would be criminal, really.
|
|
|
|
|
It's how patent trolls work. They patent a rough idea on how something might possibly work, then sue the cr@p out of anyone who does something that even slightly resembles that rough idea.
Just look at the verbiage: "can automatically modify or destroy one or more targets in the blood that have an adverse health effect".
It's a monstrous patent for technology that does not, and cannot yet, exist, which can only be used to steal funds from people who could actually make something like that work.
I've always been largely in favour of the "If you can't provide empirical proof that it works, you can't have a patent for it" concept, but, given what has been going on over the last few years, I've begun to see it as a necessity.
[edited for a tpyo]
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
modified 17-Mar-15 16:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: If you can't provide empirical proof that it works, you can't have a patent for it
Agreed. We need to go back to the days that the patent process required 2 things: 1 - the application, 2 - a fully working demo.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, thank you, that all makes good sense.
|
|
|
|
|
No empirical proof that robotniks work => no patent.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In my naiveté I thought that's how it was supposed to work - I hadn't realized that dreams could now be patented.
|
|
|
|
|
Dreams of getting rich off other people's work are very strong in some.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It used to be that to file a patent, you had to have at least a working prototype. Seems like I could patent warp drive technology now, if I wanted to.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
