They are just blaming it on Apple's lack of effort on the OpenGL front. They're hardly pushing the boat out on it. Either way, it's no excuse for such a poor port.
You don't need Apple's drivers for bootcamp for the GPU - you can just install the AMD or Nvidia ones that AMD and Nvidia supply for windows.
The one Apple ships with the bootcamp driver package (that you install from a USB stick when you first set up windows and has everything you need for the keyboard, networking, bluetooth, etc) includes one of those OEM drivers from AMD or Nvidia, it just tends to be an older one since they don't update the package all that often.
Once you have windows installed though it's no different to any other windows machine in terms of GPU drivers.
You seem to have missed the sarcasm inherent in my original comment.
The GP was claiming that they could just hose the wings down rather than using an anti-bug coating.
I was just wondering out loud how that would work when the plane is in flight given that the hose probably has a finite length.
You think there are piles of answers to this question, but as with all armchair quarterbacks you seem to think that the people who are actually working on the problem are stupid.
So how do wash the wings right after takeoff?
I think that's going to add quite a lot of time if the plane has to circle really low for multiple passes each time for Jose to hose the wings off.
Do you touch the trackpad to make it work?
Then you're using the force touch feature, even if you don't click.
Perhaps if you log in we can discuss it. It's pretty obvious.
It was pretty clear what he meant, you were just being a dick.
If you're following the comments, why didn't you log in?
It was clear that the original poster didn't understand how the technology worked.
Also, if my comment to him is considered "being a dick" then my goodness he must have a thin skin. He'd better be careful on the internet. What specifically about it is me "being a dick"?
You don't get it.
What vux984 is saying is that he set up the magic trackpad so that he only has to touch the trackpad to click, and he does not have to exert a force on it.
I personally got rid of everything that requires to exert an additional vertical force on the trackpad the day I tried to use it on my laps. I'm talking about a wireless magic trackpad of course. I replaced everything with two and three fingers gestures, and it feels so confortable that I setup my laptop the same way, and never looked back. So force touch for me doesn't make sense, but I have to admit that I have not tried a force touch enabled magic trackpad.
I do get it. He is saying that he has never used the force touch feature when that's literally impossible, even if he taps it lightly enough to just register his finger - the cap sensor and the strain gauges work together on the new trackpad. Je just didn't understand that.
No, it really doesn't.
It really doesn't MATTER.
There are two thresholds where it clicks - the fact that its haptic vs mechanical is irreelevent. I never ever touch it with enough force to engage either click threshold.
So any additional functionality mapped to touching with greater force; I'm not ever using. So it may as well not be there.
Ah, so you're changing your argument. Fair enough.
I was just pointing out that you were factually incorrect and based an argument on it. Next time you say that you don't use any part of a technology that you literally have to (because that's how the trackpad works in its entirety) you'll know a little more about it.
You have finally realized that your touchscreen controller actually provides a pressure strength and are able to hype it up like it's revolutionary.
Not even if we realize the limitations of pressure sensing of a standard capacitive controller and add additional sensors to make the detection less granular is this something new. I don't know how long Synaptics (touchpad manufacturer) have had their capacitive+force sensor combination available but it is at least two years, but even ignoring that the idea and implementation isn't anything new.
Apple's implementation of force touch on the Macbook Pro trackpad (where it is current used, not counting this rumour that it will be on the iPhone) uses a set of strain gauges to measure the applied pressure. It doesn't use the touchscreen controller.
You might want to actually look up how it works before trying to score a "sick burn" (is that what the kids call it these days?) from your armchair quarterback position.
I also don't see where Apple are hyping it up to make it seem like a revolution. They are advertising that the MBPr and MB have it, but I fail to see how their advertising materials claim it's revolutionary. Unless you think the term "whole new way to experience a trackpad" means that, and not "this trackpad works differently than the old ones due to the numerous new ways you can use it due to the force sensors"
Apple is frequently guilty of hyperbole when it comes to advertising, but on the force touch it's pretty understated. Did you just assume they would claim it was a revolution that had never been seen before? Given that you don't understand how Apple's implementation works I have to assume you've done zero research on it. Google (a popular search engine) can tell you quite a lot about it if you're interested.
Apple's implementation (at least on the trackpad on the Macbook Pro) is a set of strain gauges and a haptic feedback device that simulates the "click".
No, it really doesn't.
Look at the teardown of the MBPr's trackpad - it doesn't physically have a clickable button any more. It is 100% exclusively totally (just for redundancy) controlled via haptic feedback.
It does not physically click. Not even a little bit.
It is a flat plate with no moving parts that has a haptic feedback device fixed to it.
"Sign in to the dashboard with your Microsoft account,"
No, go fuck yourself. Give me control over my updates/drivers inside the OS and don't make me sign up for your fucking spam in order to have a WORKING operating system.
Wow, you need to calm down kid.
That is not a site for consumer.... you know what, if you didn't get it the first time, I'm not sure I'll be able to explain it any more simply.
Reality distortion field: activated.
We're seeing a slow backing-away from the ideal:
- Mac doesn't get viruses.
- Mac doesn't get viruses if you use trusted software and mainstream web pages.
- Mac doesn't get viruses if you use Apple software and the Apple website.
- Mac doesn't get viruses if you don't use it.
- Mac gets viruses.
We'd all come off more honest if we just agreed that Mac gets viruses.
For the nit picky, the second-to-last in that list seems ridiculous, but it isn't. Non-user-initiated infections are possible if it's a bug in the network stack or system services and it requires no user interaction to cause the infection. This is why XP machines get infected within 15 minutes *even if you don't do anything* (and especially if you don't patch it like a rabid maniac jabbing the Windows Update button). You can claim this is impossible on a Mac if you like but I won't believe you.
What reality distortion field? I'm not sure what part of my comment would result in that, given that I was replying with a factual statement to a comment that seemed to think that Mackeeper was software written by Apple, or that somehow Apple devices were immune to bad code. Or is that just your go to attempt at an insult? Pretty weak either way.
You're arguing from a position that does not really exist - the whole "Macs don't get viruses" thing (let's ignore that this is a trojan and not a virus, but whatever) hasn't been the current talking point officially or otherwise for a very long time, and it was never actually Apple's official advertising (because it wasn't literally true - they talked a lot about how it was more secure than Windows but never said immune).
What Apple bashers like to keep stating is that that's what they believe Apple fans are all saying, when it really isn't. OS X is as secure as any Unix system - that is, pretty good, but not immune.
What we have here is a trojan, which is a problem common to all operating systems that run on computers. But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to push.
No one is claiming that infections are "impossible" on a Mac - but you can claim that that's what Apple fans are claiming if you like.
For the record, there aren't any actual viruses for OS X in the wild. DISCLAIMER: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK OS X IS IMMUNE
So, from what I can see, you're the only one claiming that people are claiming that Macs don't get viruses. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.