afrowq
Apr 11, 05:59 PM
Exactly. Apple has been neglecting its professional products since the iPhone and iOS release, and focusing on consumer level products. A lot of people on MacRumors are new to Mac/Apple. For those of us who have used Mac's for 10+ years, mostly for work, we have become weary of the direction the company is taking for US, not for the average Joe. FCP was a standard at the time, for less than its competitors it offered a great GUI at a reasonable price point. The hardware and software are business investments.
As for the sarcastic comment regarding someone not leaving Apple now before FCP is released, it's because leaving is a huge decision. We have lots of money, time and equipment invested in our work. It's not as simple as dropping everything you have used for many, many years and investing and training yourself for another platform.
Sorry, but I am tired of the new users brought in from iPhone's and iPods and MacBook's getting snarky with the professionals who carried Apple through tough times and rely on Apple's professional line for our work. First the dedicated ACD's are neglected and replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD panel from the 27" iMac, OS X Lion is morphing into an iOS GUI, the Xeon Server processors in the Mac Pro line that replaced the affordable PowerMac G4/5's are over priced and over powered for some of our needs, Xserve was dropped not due to less sales but less marketing and development due to Apple's focus on iDevices, less OS X development such as Resolution Independence, 64-bit implementation, TRIM support for third party Sandforce SSD's, and so on. Heck, even professional such as Annie Leibovitz has left Apple due its lack of professional level products over the past four years.
There's much more to Apple than iDevices, as great as they may be. iMac's, iPads, MacBooks - they don't replace the systems Apple has left that are necessary for our work.
*and before anyone states that Apple has made billions on iDevices and iOS, they certainly can take a small amount of that cash reserve and reinvest it into a much needed market, such as a mid-level tower that fits between the top level iMac and entry level Mac Pro for those of us who need 5+ tower's but now can't afford them since the Intel transition. Apple could easily restructure their professional focus with new project managers to give a much needed refresh of their high end niche, and they could easily make a profit from that market. They created/restructured a niche market with iDevices and made a killing, why not with their professional end products? There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
Nailed it
As for the sarcastic comment regarding someone not leaving Apple now before FCP is released, it's because leaving is a huge decision. We have lots of money, time and equipment invested in our work. It's not as simple as dropping everything you have used for many, many years and investing and training yourself for another platform.
Sorry, but I am tired of the new users brought in from iPhone's and iPods and MacBook's getting snarky with the professionals who carried Apple through tough times and rely on Apple's professional line for our work. First the dedicated ACD's are neglected and replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD panel from the 27" iMac, OS X Lion is morphing into an iOS GUI, the Xeon Server processors in the Mac Pro line that replaced the affordable PowerMac G4/5's are over priced and over powered for some of our needs, Xserve was dropped not due to less sales but less marketing and development due to Apple's focus on iDevices, less OS X development such as Resolution Independence, 64-bit implementation, TRIM support for third party Sandforce SSD's, and so on. Heck, even professional such as Annie Leibovitz has left Apple due its lack of professional level products over the past four years.
There's much more to Apple than iDevices, as great as they may be. iMac's, iPads, MacBooks - they don't replace the systems Apple has left that are necessary for our work.
*and before anyone states that Apple has made billions on iDevices and iOS, they certainly can take a small amount of that cash reserve and reinvest it into a much needed market, such as a mid-level tower that fits between the top level iMac and entry level Mac Pro for those of us who need 5+ tower's but now can't afford them since the Intel transition. Apple could easily restructure their professional focus with new project managers to give a much needed refresh of their high end niche, and they could easily make a profit from that market. They created/restructured a niche market with iDevices and made a killing, why not with their professional end products? There are thousands if not more of us who would gladly pony up and stick with Apple.
Nailed it
Dan==
Jul 31, 09:35 AM
I think that the bigger issue with Dan=='s design (full credit and kudos for the idea!) is that the Mac Mini is so small that it only uses laptop components. If you want to have a full-size optical drive or a full-size hard drive, you need to use a larger form factor. This is part of the reason for the size of my design.
Here's a comparison in sizes (I've also changed the floor because my wife thought that the reflection was confusing...)
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsFrontSm.png
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsBackSm.png
Cheers!
Now you've got some skills. I especially like the shadowing, reflections and detail on the back side. Very nice.
I agree with your size assessment.
Actually, our designs are quite close, differing primarily in cosmetics. What I'm refering to is my earlier design, (which I suspect you missed) not boncellis'. boncellis wished to see a wider, flatter version for use in home entertainment, so I conjured that 2nd one up for visualization. While that form factor has grown on me somewhat, I still like the taller version, as I had done earlier, and you've shown here, as well.
Here's my initial design, from earlier in this thread.
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
The size of mine is a little smaller (narrower) - I wanted the whole thing less than 8" wide, though it could go back a little deeper, i.e. not necessarily square.
Also, see possible/hoped for product specs earlier in the thread.
Personally, I think I still prefer the smoother Mini-like skin than the perforated look of the Pro, but I'm just quibbling.
Thanks for the imagery.
-Dan
Here's a comparison in sizes (I've also changed the floor because my wife thought that the reflection was confusing...)
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsFrontSm.png
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsBackSm.png
Cheers!
Now you've got some skills. I especially like the shadowing, reflections and detail on the back side. Very nice.
I agree with your size assessment.
Actually, our designs are quite close, differing primarily in cosmetics. What I'm refering to is my earlier design, (which I suspect you missed) not boncellis'. boncellis wished to see a wider, flatter version for use in home entertainment, so I conjured that 2nd one up for visualization. While that form factor has grown on me somewhat, I still like the taller version, as I had done earlier, and you've shown here, as well.
Here's my initial design, from earlier in this thread.
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
The size of mine is a little smaller (narrower) - I wanted the whole thing less than 8" wide, though it could go back a little deeper, i.e. not necessarily square.
Also, see possible/hoped for product specs earlier in the thread.
Personally, I think I still prefer the smoother Mini-like skin than the perforated look of the Pro, but I'm just quibbling.
Thanks for the imagery.
-Dan
mwswami
Jul 21, 04:45 PM
I have way more than 4 optical dirves. But multiple DVD/CD duplication is not my thing. Moreover, running a bunch of copies of Toast to burn DVDs or CDs is not processor intensive at all and does not recquire more than one core.
One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.;)
One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.;)
excalibur313
Jun 8, 07:33 PM
How bout Best Buy?
That is my question exactly too! I have these gift certificates from them burning a hole in my pocket. I called today and the woman said she wasn't sure when they would find out launch information about that but she put me on a list to call when she did find out.
Has anyone else heard anything? What have they done for previous iphone launches?
That is my question exactly too! I have these gift certificates from them burning a hole in my pocket. I called today and the woman said she wasn't sure when they would find out launch information about that but she put me on a list to call when she did find out.
Has anyone else heard anything? What have they done for previous iphone launches?
CorvusCamenarum
Feb 28, 05:14 PM
According to the school's website (http://www.chc.edu/News/2011/February/statement_regarding_jim_st_george/), he was not fired as the OP's article suggests. Rather, his contract was not renewed. AFAIK, adjunct instructors do not enjoy the same privileges as tenured professors. If his contract ran out and was simply not renewed, then that's that, unless it can be argued that the college has some legal obligation to offer a new contract.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 07:47 AM
However the Galaxy devices are so close to Apple's products in appearance and design, it's very hard to tell them apart. THAT is the problem.
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
Don't let a few cherry picked pictures trick you, most Galaxy models don't look at all like an iPhone :
http://www.rogers.com/cms/images/en/Wireless/CellPhoneDetail/Banners/banner01_i896blkr.png
This one can go either way. Of course the Apple biased media are cherry picking their pictures. I'd doubt you'd have a hard time telling both devices apart in the real world with both in front of you.
Especially consdiring the Samsung doesn't use the icon grid on its homescreen at all, contrary to what the pictures are trying to show.
littleman23408
Dec 6, 10:25 PM
IC-10 license test is killing me. I can only manage 2nd. I can get into 3rd pretty quick (at the hairpin before the long straight) and then I can't get 2nd until the same turn, and then there is just not enough race left to get past 1st. I can get kind of close to him, but nowhere near close enough to cut him off at the last turn.
carlos700
Aug 7, 11:24 AM
I'd like to see your "Mac" model bumped up past the iMac. I think a lot of people, myself included, would pay a premium for the ability to upgrade. In fact, I wouldn't care if they didn't offer a completely new model as long as they offer some "affordable" manifestations of the Mac Pro. So how's this (and go easy on me here because I rarely delve into the technical aspect of things):
Eventually (i.e. by November), Core 2 Duo/Woodcrest across he board:
1) Mac mini: 2 models both with the 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo
2) iMac: 2 models with 1.86 GHz and 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo
3) Mac Pro: 4 models; 2 Core 2 Duo-based systems (2.40 GHz and 2.66 GHz) and 2 Xeon-based systems (2.80 GHz and 3.0 GHz). The higher-end Xeon systems would sport the same enclosure as the Core 2 Duo systems (similar to the PM G5) but would come in an anodized charcoal black enclosure.
Any takers?
-Squire
Well, most of that looks good except that there is no 2.8GHz Woodcrest.
Eventually (i.e. by November), Core 2 Duo/Woodcrest across he board:
1) Mac mini: 2 models both with the 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo
2) iMac: 2 models with 1.86 GHz and 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo
3) Mac Pro: 4 models; 2 Core 2 Duo-based systems (2.40 GHz and 2.66 GHz) and 2 Xeon-based systems (2.80 GHz and 3.0 GHz). The higher-end Xeon systems would sport the same enclosure as the Core 2 Duo systems (similar to the PM G5) but would come in an anodized charcoal black enclosure.
Any takers?
-Squire
Well, most of that looks good except that there is no 2.8GHz Woodcrest.
sunfast
Aug 17, 02:07 AM
Awesome machine. Just awesome. I can't believe that photoshop test!
LightSpeed1
Mar 26, 12:07 AM
i wonder if apple will release a version in the app store???They should.
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
dclocke
Sep 19, 08:24 AM
That isn't exactly what I said, I don't have a problem with people discussing new and upcoming products and features and when we might see them. Count me in.
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
Its all pointless as the same people will start up again with the next technology advances as soon as the Macbook range is updated with Merom.
There's something to be said for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your post...
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
Its all pointless as the same people will start up again with the next technology advances as soon as the Macbook range is updated with Merom.
There's something to be said for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your post...
Reddmanz
Apr 27, 08:09 AM
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
I was looking forward to seeing mine seeing as I've been doing a lot of travelling last few months, then I remembered I'm still running 3.1.3.
I was looking forward to seeing mine seeing as I've been doing a lot of travelling last few months, then I remembered I'm still running 3.1.3.
dernhelm
Nov 29, 07:24 AM
Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
Sydde
Mar 17, 01:48 PM
Ultra FAIL fear mongering. Libertarian ≠ Anarchist. Small government ≠ no government. Limiting government with constitutional constraints ≠ destruction of government.
He's a common sense constitutional conservative, enemy of tyranny everywhere, and an unfailing defender of fundamental human liberty.
OK, I confess, "shut down" was a slight exaggeration. But as the paragon of neo-liberalism, Paul would wholly gut every little regulatory agency that provides any kind of buffer that protects people and businesses from the depredations of corporate interests, instead electing to enact policies that would protect corporations from the depredations of people. That would be the net effect of his idealism, and if you take five minutes to read the article I linked to, it will become evident that Paul's lasseiz-faire ideals have been proven to fail miserably (unless you are already loaded). Heck, we have seen parallels in the lingering devastation caused by Reagan's policies.
He's a common sense constitutional conservative, enemy of tyranny everywhere, and an unfailing defender of fundamental human liberty.
OK, I confess, "shut down" was a slight exaggeration. But as the paragon of neo-liberalism, Paul would wholly gut every little regulatory agency that provides any kind of buffer that protects people and businesses from the depredations of corporate interests, instead electing to enact policies that would protect corporations from the depredations of people. That would be the net effect of his idealism, and if you take five minutes to read the article I linked to, it will become evident that Paul's lasseiz-faire ideals have been proven to fail miserably (unless you are already loaded). Heck, we have seen parallels in the lingering devastation caused by Reagan's policies.
VanNess
Aug 5, 10:20 PM
Well, if you're located and in SF and are you are a Safari user, or have questions about Safari, or maybe even questions about what SJ shows Safari-wise or other webkit-related content in Leopard, you don't have to shell out for WWDC admission, because the Safari/webkit folks are hosting a freebie (http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=63) on Tuesday at 7 that's open to all.
If you are a Mac OS X developer, a browser hacker, a web developer, or just someone with an interest in cool technology, then come hobnob with WebKit contributors from Apple and elsewhere. Unlike WWDC itself, this event will be open to anyone who is interested free of charge. Also, it will be unbelievably awesome. We promise!
If you are a Mac OS X developer, a browser hacker, a web developer, or just someone with an interest in cool technology, then come hobnob with WebKit contributors from Apple and elsewhere. Unlike WWDC itself, this event will be open to anyone who is interested free of charge. Also, it will be unbelievably awesome. We promise!
zelet
Aug 25, 04:57 PM
Just out of curiosity... what kind of problems could you possibly have with .mac? I mean, I've never had any email problems, Setting it up in Mail is as simple as possible... the online interface is simple...
I dunno... hearing people complain about customer service regarding .mac seems funny to me. What types of problems have you had with it?
Well, recently there have been problems with people having their mail bounced back to them because somehow the dotMac smtp servers were blacklisted by spamcop and a few other services. They have been having pretty bad, though geographically localized, service disruptions. Friends of mine have also complained that mail they send to me are sometimes bounced back with a "This account doesn't exist" error message even though they have sent me mail before and after the event (yes, they verified the email address).
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
I dunno... hearing people complain about customer service regarding .mac seems funny to me. What types of problems have you had with it?
Well, recently there have been problems with people having their mail bounced back to them because somehow the dotMac smtp servers were blacklisted by spamcop and a few other services. They have been having pretty bad, though geographically localized, service disruptions. Friends of mine have also complained that mail they send to me are sometimes bounced back with a "This account doesn't exist" error message even though they have sent me mail before and after the event (yes, they verified the email address).
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Unspeaked
Sep 19, 11:24 AM
I ordered my 15" MBP yesterday and they are telling me it will ship next Tuesday. I sure hope that when the package arrives the MBP will have no stinking Merom, no more than 512 MB RAM, no better than an 80 Gb/5400 rpm HDD, and -- please God -- no magnetic latch! Oh - and one more thing: Apple better not send me a refund if they lower the price before the package hits my doorstep. :mad:
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
Cory Bauer
Apr 12, 08:00 PM
Yeah no kidding...they should have taken the "New" off the page at least a year ago.
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
paul4339
Apr 20, 10:48 AM
You mean it's not an Apple? :eek: But it's ok for Apple to sue and Australian grocery store because they think the letter W looks like their logo? LMAO. Please.
I think this was because Woolworth (Australian supermarket giant) applied for a blanket trademark that allows it to apply it's logo on anything - especially competing electronic goods, computers, music players, and branded phones. (I'm not saying it's right, just surfacing some more details)
P.
I think this was because Woolworth (Australian supermarket giant) applied for a blanket trademark that allows it to apply it's logo on anything - especially competing electronic goods, computers, music players, and branded phones. (I'm not saying it's right, just surfacing some more details)
P.
Eidorian
Jul 27, 10:12 AM
i cant wait to do this to my mac mini. i bought the core solo with the intention of upgrading the chip myself (once i heard core 2 was pin to pin compatible) but my question now is does anyone know if the version shipping is still pin to pin compatible???!?!?!http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
k995
Apr 20, 05:56 PM
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
I am talking about lg prada among others if you bothered to read my post you would see that .
I am talking about lg prada among others if you bothered to read my post you would see that .
DeVizardofOZ
Aug 30, 06:14 AM
I don't believe Apple would (or should) license out Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. This is because Apple is a hardware company that uses Mac OS X to sell hardware. I wouldn't want it to be licensed out anyway, because then we would have to deal with registration key nightmares. Right now, there's nothing but your conscience and a license agreement you probably threw away keeping you from installing one copy of Mac OS X on every Mac you can get your hands on. Not that I do that, but I sure like just popping in my disk and reinstalling whenever it strikes my fancy.
On to the support issue, I think since the beginning of technical support there have always been those who complain that quality has really gone down and back in the good ol' days, you never had any problems, ever! And now, by golly, it's a coin toss whether you get a machine that even turns on!
Right, gramps, and back in your day, you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow with no boots and you liked it.
And 25% of new machines being lemons? Last quarter, Apple reported they shipped 1,327,000 computers. If we call a quarter 90 days, and assume that 25% of them are dead, that's more than 3,600 computers sold defective every single day. Are you kidding me? You really think a major hardware company would sell 3,600 defective computers every single day and get away with it?
This is what's really happening: Apple is selling more machines than ever. Apple's customers have greater access to the internet than ever. Even if the rate of failure stays the same, you have more customers with more internet savvy to come whine and moan on bulletin boards.
Yes, you deserve a perfectly functioning computer and you have the right to complain when your computer is broken. So call Apple or go down to your local service provider and get your machine serviced under warranty. That's what it's there for. It's also the number 1 best way to help Apple get clued in to potential issues with their products. They're not going to issue a recall because a bunch of bulletin board users complain to each other over and over again until they convince each other that there isn't a single MacBook Pro in the world that functions properly.
_________________________________________________________________________
because, no matter what I hear around the board, all of you forgot to consider, that there must be a large number of faulty products WHICH DID NOT SLIP THROUGH THE SLOPPY CQ AT THE FACTORY. Therefore 20-25% lemons is indeed possible and much too high a percentage in any manufacturing process.
Best
On to the support issue, I think since the beginning of technical support there have always been those who complain that quality has really gone down and back in the good ol' days, you never had any problems, ever! And now, by golly, it's a coin toss whether you get a machine that even turns on!
Right, gramps, and back in your day, you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow with no boots and you liked it.
And 25% of new machines being lemons? Last quarter, Apple reported they shipped 1,327,000 computers. If we call a quarter 90 days, and assume that 25% of them are dead, that's more than 3,600 computers sold defective every single day. Are you kidding me? You really think a major hardware company would sell 3,600 defective computers every single day and get away with it?
This is what's really happening: Apple is selling more machines than ever. Apple's customers have greater access to the internet than ever. Even if the rate of failure stays the same, you have more customers with more internet savvy to come whine and moan on bulletin boards.
Yes, you deserve a perfectly functioning computer and you have the right to complain when your computer is broken. So call Apple or go down to your local service provider and get your machine serviced under warranty. That's what it's there for. It's also the number 1 best way to help Apple get clued in to potential issues with their products. They're not going to issue a recall because a bunch of bulletin board users complain to each other over and over again until they convince each other that there isn't a single MacBook Pro in the world that functions properly.
_________________________________________________________________________
because, no matter what I hear around the board, all of you forgot to consider, that there must be a large number of faulty products WHICH DID NOT SLIP THROUGH THE SLOPPY CQ AT THE FACTORY. Therefore 20-25% lemons is indeed possible and much too high a percentage in any manufacturing process.
Best
Bill McEnaney
Apr 28, 02:57 PM
...so what you said about doubting and not believing is not true.
I was making a general point. Skunk is asking about a specific one. If I deny that I believe some proposition, that may because I haven't formed any opinion about whether it's true. If I haven't formed any opinion about whether that proposition is true, I neither believe that proposition, doubt it, nor believe that it's false. I've suspended judgment about it. You ask me whether I like lobster. I say "no" because I haven't tried it. Since I haven't tried it, I have no idea whether I'll like it. I'll tell you, "Let's wait and see whether I'll like it." Skunk told me that he didn't hate me. I'm glad he doesn't hate me, but I don't know whether he likes me. If he dislikes me, that's all right. But if he says that he doesn't hate me, that doesn't imply that he likes me.
No, folks, I haven't been talking in circles.
I was making a general point. Skunk is asking about a specific one. If I deny that I believe some proposition, that may because I haven't formed any opinion about whether it's true. If I haven't formed any opinion about whether that proposition is true, I neither believe that proposition, doubt it, nor believe that it's false. I've suspended judgment about it. You ask me whether I like lobster. I say "no" because I haven't tried it. Since I haven't tried it, I have no idea whether I'll like it. I'll tell you, "Let's wait and see whether I'll like it." Skunk told me that he didn't hate me. I'm glad he doesn't hate me, but I don't know whether he likes me. If he dislikes me, that's all right. But if he says that he doesn't hate me, that doesn't imply that he likes me.
No, folks, I haven't been talking in circles.