JAT
Apr 19, 04:31 PM
honestly i don't understand Company Obsession.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
Obsession can be positive or negative. Loving or hating a company is irrational.
Its fine to love gadgets, regardless of company, but to be blindly following a multinational corporation whose only motivation is $$$ for its shareholders, its kinda retarded.
EVERYONE. BE A GADGET FAN. DON'T OBSESS OVER A COMPANY.
Obsession can be positive or negative. Loving or hating a company is irrational.
jettredmont
Apr 10, 05:26 PM
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
Umm, it's a Final Cut Users' Group, not an Avid user's group. I think they are a little more interested in the next big step in Fincal Cut Pro, moreso than what Avid and Adobe are doing. Apple demanded all stage time, because they have a lot to cover, and want the rest of the meet available to talk about what they demo. Seems completely kosher to me.
Now, if this was Apple going to something like NAB and telling them to boot out all their non-Apple demos, that would be different. But while this is at NAB, it is quite specifically the group of self-identified folks who care more about FCP than anything else. So no big deal.
Umm, it's a Final Cut Users' Group, not an Avid user's group. I think they are a little more interested in the next big step in Fincal Cut Pro, moreso than what Avid and Adobe are doing. Apple demanded all stage time, because they have a lot to cover, and want the rest of the meet available to talk about what they demo. Seems completely kosher to me.
Now, if this was Apple going to something like NAB and telling them to boot out all their non-Apple demos, that would be different. But while this is at NAB, it is quite specifically the group of self-identified folks who care more about FCP than anything else. So no big deal.
meanmusic
Jul 27, 09:32 PM
You didn't really just link to MOSR, did you? :p
Anyway, I have the sneaking suspicion that we will see Core 2 Duo/Extreme-related computer announcements next week, and not at WWDC. WWDC will get major coverage anyway because of Leopard (which could easily take up the whole keynote). So why not spread the Apple press over 2 weeks?
Moreover, everyone announced new computers today. Apple might have wanted to avoid the first-day glut of releases, but they might not want to wait almost 2 full weeks to announce a Mac Pro.
My wild guess is Mac Daddy Extreme and/or iMaconroe on Tuesday with near-immediate availability, and announcement of MeromBook Pro at WWDC with early September availability.
I'm hoping for Merom news at WWDC but Fujitsu announced Merom laptops that will only be available sometime in Q4 I hope the same isn't true for the MBP.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/27/fujitsu-to-add-core-2-duo-options-to-lifebook-n6400-series/
Anyway, I have the sneaking suspicion that we will see Core 2 Duo/Extreme-related computer announcements next week, and not at WWDC. WWDC will get major coverage anyway because of Leopard (which could easily take up the whole keynote). So why not spread the Apple press over 2 weeks?
Moreover, everyone announced new computers today. Apple might have wanted to avoid the first-day glut of releases, but they might not want to wait almost 2 full weeks to announce a Mac Pro.
My wild guess is Mac Daddy Extreme and/or iMaconroe on Tuesday with near-immediate availability, and announcement of MeromBook Pro at WWDC with early September availability.
I'm hoping for Merom news at WWDC but Fujitsu announced Merom laptops that will only be available sometime in Q4 I hope the same isn't true for the MBP.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/27/fujitsu-to-add-core-2-duo-options-to-lifebook-n6400-series/
jeffereyj
Apr 6, 01:12 PM
sorry but if you're trying to do "pro" work on a MBA, ur doin it wrong.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
gregorsamsa
Aug 27, 08:27 AM
You are talking crap. It is only about industrial quality. Nothing else.
There are simply too many individual issues with the new MB and MBP here, and I do not want to repeat them. Mostly hardware, but some are related to using OSX and MSOS. You can read, so do that.
APPLE has been 'second to none' in the eyes of APPLE users, compared to who? I think MAC OS is fantastic, but it does not mean, that all those who switch now to APPLE have to accept hardware lemons to get this OS... Absolutely no excuse for over 25% crap products delivered to the customers...
Everybody knows that APPLE could have had a 40+ market share, but decided not to license out. We all would be happier now, but JOBS decided against that years back. So now we are talking about a less than 5% market share... JUst do your math: If they had a 40% share WW, we would hear millions screaming about their lemons...
It seems there's too much luck involved when buying an APPLE product right now.
When they finally get their QC act together I will gladly buy their product.
Cheers, and no hard feelings.
Yes, people have every right to complain when they receive faulty products, particularly so when they're paying good money, as they do when buying Apple. But whether Apple's QC has suffered significantly as they try to keep costs down due to the market pressures of increasingly feasible like-with-like comparisons with PCs, as well as meeting an increasing consumer demand, is debatable? Though there certainly seems to be a worrying increase in complaints about the new Intel Macs, I wonder how much of that is down to perception as more people use the internet as a channel to vent their complaints? Regarding the new Intel Macs, the jury here is still very much out (& will remain so for at least another 6 months). Not least because...
Recent surveys continue to give Apple an excellent rating for overall quality when compared to other brands. (Only Sony's computers get similar ratings). Talking about "25% crap products" may feel good as a rhetorical release, but it doesn't really help the debate here.
Good point, however, about how Apple's market share could've been so much greater if only SJ had licensed out OS X. A great opportunity missed.
There are simply too many individual issues with the new MB and MBP here, and I do not want to repeat them. Mostly hardware, but some are related to using OSX and MSOS. You can read, so do that.
APPLE has been 'second to none' in the eyes of APPLE users, compared to who? I think MAC OS is fantastic, but it does not mean, that all those who switch now to APPLE have to accept hardware lemons to get this OS... Absolutely no excuse for over 25% crap products delivered to the customers...
Everybody knows that APPLE could have had a 40+ market share, but decided not to license out. We all would be happier now, but JOBS decided against that years back. So now we are talking about a less than 5% market share... JUst do your math: If they had a 40% share WW, we would hear millions screaming about their lemons...
It seems there's too much luck involved when buying an APPLE product right now.
When they finally get their QC act together I will gladly buy their product.
Cheers, and no hard feelings.
Yes, people have every right to complain when they receive faulty products, particularly so when they're paying good money, as they do when buying Apple. But whether Apple's QC has suffered significantly as they try to keep costs down due to the market pressures of increasingly feasible like-with-like comparisons with PCs, as well as meeting an increasing consumer demand, is debatable? Though there certainly seems to be a worrying increase in complaints about the new Intel Macs, I wonder how much of that is down to perception as more people use the internet as a channel to vent their complaints? Regarding the new Intel Macs, the jury here is still very much out (& will remain so for at least another 6 months). Not least because...
Recent surveys continue to give Apple an excellent rating for overall quality when compared to other brands. (Only Sony's computers get similar ratings). Talking about "25% crap products" may feel good as a rhetorical release, but it doesn't really help the debate here.
Good point, however, about how Apple's market share could've been so much greater if only SJ had licensed out OS X. A great opportunity missed.
Macnoviz
Jul 22, 03:03 AM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
domness
Mar 26, 09:02 PM
To be fair, 10.7 on my machine is rather stable, however the features in it seem just like a small upgrade like 10.6 was, albeit I don't really like the new features as it seems a bit more dumbed down. The only thing I like is that the latest PHP version comes preinstalled and didn't have any problems installing MySQL as I did with 10.6. 'spose that comes as a bonus.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 11:40 AM
Most people run more than one app at once.
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
Warbrain
Apr 11, 11:53 AM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition...
And you'll be complaining about battery life and the Android experience in a few days.
And you'll be complaining about battery life and the Android experience in a few days.
CaoCao
Mar 4, 01:46 PM
This is true because you say it's true?
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
leekohler
Mar 3, 11:13 PM
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
BornAgainMac
Aug 11, 01:54 PM
Mac Mobile should be the name of the phone. Remember that Steve said he wants Mac in the name. Mac Mobile will be perfect. Complete with Pocket Photo, Pocket Movie, Pocket Tunes, and Pocket iChat.
Willis
Jul 28, 05:46 PM
I appreciate the thoughts on my quandry whether or not to return my 20 " iMac and purchase after the WWDC. Of course my decision is not any easier with one vote for and one vote against.
Thanks Grokgod and Multimedia for the thoughts...
bare in mind that iMacs might not even get updated at wwdc. it could be at the paris expo.
go with what you feel suits you best.
Thanks Grokgod and Multimedia for the thoughts...
bare in mind that iMacs might not even get updated at wwdc. it could be at the paris expo.
go with what you feel suits you best.
BLUELION
Apr 7, 11:30 PM
This is a rumor site??? Really?? No way!
You people don't know the facts and are jumping to conclusions. You need to realize that this is a RUMOR site....
You people don't know the facts and are jumping to conclusions. You need to realize that this is a RUMOR site....
NickPill
Aug 7, 10:55 PM
Hi, this is just a question to the developers. Did you already get 10.5? I have the ADC Select membership but can�t find 10.5 in the download section. Please send me an email where I can find it. Thank you!
yg17
Apr 27, 08:59 AM
Before yesterday?
In before the election.
In before the election.
notabadname
Mar 22, 01:15 PM
This is just a preview of the future, Android based tablets will clean the iPads clock. Apple made the so-called iPad 2 as a 1.5. Low res camera, not enough RAM, and low res screen. It's going to be a verrrry long 2012 for Apple. Sure it's selling like hot cakes now, but when buyers see tablets that they don't have to stand inline for, that have better equipment and are cheaper ... Apples house of cards will come crashing down around them.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
You are the funniest poster on here. Thanks for the entertainment. (Not sure if it's your intent, but thanks anyway.)
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
You are the funniest poster on here. Thanks for the entertainment. (Not sure if it's your intent, but thanks anyway.)
skunk
Apr 28, 04:41 PM
Obama's too smart. :)
squeeks
Apr 28, 06:10 PM
Look...I'll be the first to admit..there are some wacko Christians out there..like this dude from florida who burned the Quran..i mean wth was he thinking? but we're not all wacko as alot of you suggest... the posts a lot of people on here make, lump ALL of us together. And thats just not cool...
Same goes for conservatives and tea party members...Yes a lot of tea party members are quite radical. But not ALL of them you can probably safely say 99% of racists would consider themselves tea party..but that doesn�t mean everyone in the tea party is racist...
Consider this please before any of you go lumping all of a particular group into one derogatory name..
Same goes for conservatives and tea party members...Yes a lot of tea party members are quite radical. But not ALL of them you can probably safely say 99% of racists would consider themselves tea party..but that doesn�t mean everyone in the tea party is racist...
Consider this please before any of you go lumping all of a particular group into one derogatory name..
kdarling
Apr 20, 04:34 PM
Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then :)
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then :)
sonnys
Jul 15, 05:04 PM
Too many people are complaining about rumored information that isn't even reliable, and most likely incorrect.
I think we can look at what Apple has done with its other lineups this past year as a guide to the future. Based on what we've seen, I don't think Apple will be redesigning the Mac Pro case -- it's large enough to accommodate anything they wish to throw in there. I also think it's a great industrial design, physically alluding to the power within.
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
Having two optical drives makes sense if one of the drives is going to be BluRay -- isn't BluRay incompatible with writing DVD and HD-DVD content? It would make sense if one of the drives was BluRay, the other was HD-DVD, giving Mac Pro users access to the full spectrum of DVD authoring hardware. If two optical bays are provided, I believe this type of configuration will be offered.
I'll be watching the announcement closely, although my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 (single core) handles everything I throw at it and has never ever given me reason to even want to upgrade. However, if the new Mac Pro hits 3 GHz I may be very tempted... if it doesn't, I'll wait it out. If the new high end Mac Pro doesn't go to 3 GHz like Dell and others, the Mac Pro will sink plenty fast.
I think we can look at what Apple has done with its other lineups this past year as a guide to the future. Based on what we've seen, I don't think Apple will be redesigning the Mac Pro case -- it's large enough to accommodate anything they wish to throw in there. I also think it's a great industrial design, physically alluding to the power within.
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
Having two optical drives makes sense if one of the drives is going to be BluRay -- isn't BluRay incompatible with writing DVD and HD-DVD content? It would make sense if one of the drives was BluRay, the other was HD-DVD, giving Mac Pro users access to the full spectrum of DVD authoring hardware. If two optical bays are provided, I believe this type of configuration will be offered.
I'll be watching the announcement closely, although my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 (single core) handles everything I throw at it and has never ever given me reason to even want to upgrade. However, if the new Mac Pro hits 3 GHz I may be very tempted... if it doesn't, I'll wait it out. If the new high end Mac Pro doesn't go to 3 GHz like Dell and others, the Mac Pro will sink plenty fast.
-aggie-
Jun 11, 08:32 AM
With the Shack getting the iPhone, the iPhone may have finally jumped the shark.
dscottbuch
Apr 25, 03:05 PM
"a perfect storm", "overreaction", "typical for the us to sue.."
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
Perfect example of 'journalists' not taking the time to explain what is really happening and then 'reader' not trying to understand. Apple receives NONE of this information. No One receives any of this information. Its simply another file on your phone. Should they (Apple) fix this - YES. Is anyone aware of ANY harm done to ANY person by this (other than the catch-all psychological harm which can't really be quantified) - I doubt it.
Even the theory that this could be used against you by law enforcement is flawed as I would bet that collection of this data by a law enforcement agency would be prohibited as it was NOT opted into by the user.
There is NO HARM here to actually litigate - so the conclusion that the lawyers are money grubbers.
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
Perfect example of 'journalists' not taking the time to explain what is really happening and then 'reader' not trying to understand. Apple receives NONE of this information. No One receives any of this information. Its simply another file on your phone. Should they (Apple) fix this - YES. Is anyone aware of ANY harm done to ANY person by this (other than the catch-all psychological harm which can't really be quantified) - I doubt it.
Even the theory that this could be used against you by law enforcement is flawed as I would bet that collection of this data by a law enforcement agency would be prohibited as it was NOT opted into by the user.
There is NO HARM here to actually litigate - so the conclusion that the lawyers are money grubbers.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar