iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 07:58 PM
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
Yahweh uses stone tablets.
Allah uses an abacus.
Buddha uses food.
Yes, and leaders, not followers, use Macs.
:p
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
Yahweh uses stone tablets.
Allah uses an abacus.
Buddha uses food.
Yes, and leaders, not followers, use Macs.
:p
TallGuy1970
Apr 20, 05:47 PM
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
ct2k7
Oct 7, 11:12 AM
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
Volcom Wings Of Glory Soft Side Skimpy Bikini Bottom
Pink Bikini Bottom | Free
this ikini bottom is
diamond.g
Apr 9, 06:19 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
The only thing I can see Apple redefining is our willingness to buy a game that we cannot resell. I am not seeing anything (game play wise) that couldn't be done on other platforms.
The only thing I can see Apple redefining is our willingness to buy a game that we cannot resell. I am not seeing anything (game play wise) that couldn't be done on other platforms.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 10:04 PM
So this site is for fanboys only?
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
MacRumors
Apr 12, 10:11 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/12/apple-demos-final-cut-pro-x-at-nab-2011/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/12/225656-275785456_500.jpg
Side Skimpy Bikini Bottom
Panache Bikini Bottoms
print tie ikini bottom
ikini bottom swimsuit sz
Brazilian Bikini Bottom
Pink Bikini Bottom | Free
ikini bottom spongebob.
sand in my ikini bottom!quot;
Volcom Skinny Beach Tie Side Skimpy Bikini Bottom Women#39;s middot; Volcom Skinny Beach Tie Side Skimpy Bikini Bottom Women#39;s
tie-side ikini bottoms in
string ikini bottoms a
classic ikini bottom.
Sims3 - Flag Bikini Bottom V.2
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/12/225656-275785456_500.jpg
paolo-
Apr 6, 11:02 PM
I think your experience with the operating system will greatly depend on how you understand the computer and how open you are to a new interpretation of it.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
AdrianK
Apr 6, 11:16 AM
- Viewing/deleting files in/modifying/... zipfiles without having to extract them first. In windows, I could just mess around in zipfiles or rars with files. If someone has a good app for that, let me know ;-)
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
rxse7en
Oct 11, 06:34 AM
If Apple wants to be aggressive, it will happen next month. But if they don't, it could be as late as January. I am sitting on a large pile of cash to buy one the day they are added to the configure page. Love the Dell Screens. They have refurbished 30" models for $1349 now. :eek: :)
I know no one here likes to read my stories of inadequate power, but even with the Quad G5 and that cheap 2GHz Dual Core G5 I picked up at Fry's, I still have to put my Multi-Threaded Workload into a Queue that all runs much slower than it will with 8 cores. I am very excited about the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.
I was one click away from buying a refurb 2.66 Mac Pro last evening and decided to wait until next month to see what Apple brings to the table. I've sold off my Quicksilver, Pismo, G4 AL 'book, and G4 Mini and picked up a MBP and MB now all I need is a new tower and my Intel transition is complete. Aside from the lack of UB CS2 apps it's been a great transition.
Now I have to get rid of two 21" Viewsonic CRTs and upgrade my displays. I was able to check out the Dell 24" display and it's pretty sweet, but on Friday Costco will have the Viewsonic 22" LCDs on sale for $300 each. For the less than the price of a 24" I could pick up two 22" LCDs. Granted they are lower resolution, but I think the extra monitor makes up for that missing real estate. Any feedback on this is appreciated.
B
I know no one here likes to read my stories of inadequate power, but even with the Quad G5 and that cheap 2GHz Dual Core G5 I picked up at Fry's, I still have to put my Multi-Threaded Workload into a Queue that all runs much slower than it will with 8 cores. I am very excited about the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.
I was one click away from buying a refurb 2.66 Mac Pro last evening and decided to wait until next month to see what Apple brings to the table. I've sold off my Quicksilver, Pismo, G4 AL 'book, and G4 Mini and picked up a MBP and MB now all I need is a new tower and my Intel transition is complete. Aside from the lack of UB CS2 apps it's been a great transition.
Now I have to get rid of two 21" Viewsonic CRTs and upgrade my displays. I was able to check out the Dell 24" display and it's pretty sweet, but on Friday Costco will have the Viewsonic 22" LCDs on sale for $300 each. For the less than the price of a 24" I could pick up two 22" LCDs. Granted they are lower resolution, but I think the extra monitor makes up for that missing real estate. Any feedback on this is appreciated.
B
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Please elaborate LTD.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 09:49 PM
I still regard nuclear fission as the best option among fossil fuel technologies to get us over the hump until alternative energy sources can cover 100% of demand and/or nuclear fusion is ready for commercial use. I still would prefer us to phase out coal, oil, gas and trash burning plants before we shut down our nuclear reactors as they have better carbon footprints and the mining of their fuel is overall less damaging than coal strip mining. Do we need to quickly move away from Gen I and II technology and get to at least III+ technology for all of our reactors, absolutely, but exiting nuclear fission technology at least in the short to midterm seems like a poor choice to me.
milozauckerman
Jul 13, 11:16 AM
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
Well, well, some wicked-awesome case design is what matters most! Is it tough to say that with a straight face?
Isn't this just the wannabe design-snob version of l33t kiddos outfitting their computers with neon and other assorted garbage?
Well, well, some wicked-awesome case design is what matters most! Is it tough to say that with a straight face?
Isn't this just the wannabe design-snob version of l33t kiddos outfitting their computers with neon and other assorted garbage?
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:48 AM
+11
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
Eidorian
Jul 13, 08:07 AM
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. Um, it's basically the same chip. Conroe just doesn't meet the thermal requirements to be called "Merom".
I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.Apple controls the supply and we live with it. Sure we'd like to be able to pick CPU options (ala PC manufacturers) but Apple hasn't give that to us yet.
Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.I would be happy with a Merom iMac. In fact I expect Merom to be in the iMac. They share the same socket. It's an easy update path for Apple.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.We'd all like Apple to be more like Dell in terms of price, model, and chip selection.
I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.Apple controls the supply and we live with it. Sure we'd like to be able to pick CPU options (ala PC manufacturers) but Apple hasn't give that to us yet.
Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.I would be happy with a Merom iMac. In fact I expect Merom to be in the iMac. They share the same socket. It's an easy update path for Apple.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.We'd all like Apple to be more like Dell in terms of price, model, and chip selection.
zencowboy
May 5, 01:23 PM
I honestly can say no dropped calls for me in Boulder and when traveling to Golden and Evergreen CO using At&t since 2005 with an iphone and LG phone since then. From all the posts saying works here...doesn't work here, seems there must be more to the issue!?
A 'joke' that came to mind is some folks energy vibe might be quite low that it must be sucking the calls connecting waves right out of the phone and thus dropping calls:p
A 'joke' that came to mind is some folks energy vibe might be quite low that it must be sucking the calls connecting waves right out of the phone and thus dropping calls:p
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:02 PM
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
Warbrain
Oct 8, 10:13 AM
Flash is what will bring the iPhone down.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
T'hain Esh Kelch
Sep 12, 03:38 PM
So basically this needs two things for me to buy it:
� You must be able to record from the TV, directly to your mac.
� It must replace Airport Express.
Im still not sure on the last one..
Optical drive isnt a biggie for me, since you can just stream from your Mac's Superdrive anyway.
And i like how they say 802.11 instead of 802.11g, which probably means we are gonna get 802.11n. Would also make sense why it isnt out now! :)
But why they are showing it of know.. Well.. Steve rreallyreallyreallyeally wanted to show of?
� You must be able to record from the TV, directly to your mac.
� It must replace Airport Express.
Im still not sure on the last one..
Optical drive isnt a biggie for me, since you can just stream from your Mac's Superdrive anyway.
And i like how they say 802.11 instead of 802.11g, which probably means we are gonna get 802.11n. Would also make sense why it isnt out now! :)
But why they are showing it of know.. Well.. Steve rreallyreallyreallyeally wanted to show of?
Benjamins
Apr 9, 04:54 AM
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
Daveoc64
Mar 13, 08:44 AM
Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:49 AM
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
kntgsp
Mar 18, 04:50 AM
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Napster and Limewire? What is this, 2002?
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Napster and Limewire? What is this, 2002?
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:32 PM
Because it is the third longest example of drift on PRSI (for now) and since appleguy123 started that one, of course he wants it to continue.
Caught! :D
Knowing how the PRSI works one naive bump could help me achieve the record.
Caught! :D
Knowing how the PRSI works one naive bump could help me achieve the record.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét