pilotkev1
Apr 10, 02:10 AM
But it does worry me that the program could become more for mass audience and no longer the pro application it has been for the past decade.
The pro of today is no longer the pro of the past decade. Pro is a far broader term in 2011. Nearly anyone could be a 'pro' with a little interest, work, and dedication.
The pro of today is no longer the pro of the past decade. Pro is a far broader term in 2011. Nearly anyone could be a 'pro' with a little interest, work, and dedication.
SPUY767
Jul 27, 03:38 PM
Sorry if i missed it, but at what speeds do these run? Don't they know just because they keep bumping and bumping the chip speed don't really mean they have a faster system. Seem just like yesterday when a better design was more important than a super fast chip. Oh well, everyone is buying into the Mhz myth now. Funny that just a year or so ago, Apple was trying to shoot down the Mhz myth, now they have people cheering for it. I guess power consumption is good though.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
Cheffy Dave
Apr 6, 11:31 AM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Thanks HH for those stats!:cool:
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Thanks HH for those stats!:cool:
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
bigpics
Apr 11, 02:13 PM
If it is going to be a 4g/LTE iPhone then this works for me. I have no complaints with my iPhone 4 so waiting another 4-6 months is fine with me.I don't follow components closely, but I've read the current LTE chipset is none too svelte and power-hungry to boot.
If a delay's about LTE (and giving more time for tower rollout), it could be because Apple's sourcing next gen LTE radio (if one is near), keeping the device "thinner, faster, longer-running," consistent with current evolution and marketing points.
And for the record, neither Sprint's WiMax, T-mob's HSPA+ nor either Verizon's or ATT's LTE 1 come close to meeting the evolving, but existing spec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)for "4G"
If a delay's about LTE (and giving more time for tower rollout), it could be because Apple's sourcing next gen LTE radio (if one is near), keeping the device "thinner, faster, longer-running," consistent with current evolution and marketing points.
And for the record, neither Sprint's WiMax, T-mob's HSPA+ nor either Verizon's or ATT's LTE 1 come close to meeting the evolving, but existing spec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)for "4G"
NATO
Nov 28, 06:18 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
ugp
Jun 9, 10:10 PM
I am doing my pre-order without even walking into the Store. The perks of knowing the Manager. He is going to take care of everything for me because I know he wants that SPIFF lol.
For any of your Radio Shack employees does your store plan on opening at 6AM? My friend said for the Evo launch they opened just for Evo customers at 6AM and he doesn't see any reason they would not do this for the iPhone 4 as well.
For any of your Radio Shack employees does your store plan on opening at 6AM? My friend said for the Evo launch they opened just for Evo customers at 6AM and he doesn't see any reason they would not do this for the iPhone 4 as well.
Bubba Satori
Mar 26, 12:23 PM
Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Yes, as more and more of iOS moves into OS X.
Yes, as more and more of iOS moves into OS X.
Val-kyrie
Jul 30, 01:22 PM
So are we really going to get ALL of these new toys come WWDC? Leopard preview, Merom laptops, Core2/Woodcrest Mac Pros, Core2 Imacs (oh, and maybe a movie download add to iTunes) That sounds like an awful lot of stuff to cover in such a short period of time. What do people think about timelines for introduction here?
Doubtful. This would leave nothing for September. (I hope this hasn't already been said, but I want to post before reading the other 200+ via modem). My prediction is the debut of Mac Pros, a preview of Leopard and perhaps an iMac update. The Merom chips will not be shipped until the end of Aug., so expect the unveiling of the MBPs in a (slightly) new form factor with 64 bit Core 2 Duo in Sep., along with the silent update of MBs, and an iMac update if they are not updated in Aug. I have not a clue about movie updates or updates to the iPod lines, though by Sep. would be reasonable.
Doubtful. This would leave nothing for September. (I hope this hasn't already been said, but I want to post before reading the other 200+ via modem). My prediction is the debut of Mac Pros, a preview of Leopard and perhaps an iMac update. The Merom chips will not be shipped until the end of Aug., so expect the unveiling of the MBPs in a (slightly) new form factor with 64 bit Core 2 Duo in Sep., along with the silent update of MBs, and an iMac update if they are not updated in Aug. I have not a clue about movie updates or updates to the iPod lines, though by Sep. would be reasonable.
NewSc2
Sep 19, 02:18 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
Shagrat
Sep 13, 07:56 AM
and this got negative votes because...??????????
Yeesh!
Yeesh!
faroZ06
Apr 8, 12:46 AM
I meant last year when the iPhone 4 was released....
Yes, did they have the iPhone 4 in the AT&T stores? I thought they did. I know for sure when the 3G came out, they had it in the AT&T stores as well as the Apple stores.
I don't mean the $50 3GS that you can get now from AT&T.
Yes, did they have the iPhone 4 in the AT&T stores? I thought they did. I know for sure when the 3G came out, they had it in the AT&T stores as well as the Apple stores.
I don't mean the $50 3GS that you can get now from AT&T.
jessica.
Mar 17, 10:34 AM
Who is this "you" that you speak of? I didn't vote for Obama. :rolleyes:
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 03:42 PM
Everyone is trying to get a piece of what Apple created - and not suffer the same fate that all those that tried to compete with the iPod faced.
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
takao
Dec 7, 06:18 PM
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
haha you should see some of the cornering my bspec driver does in my camaro .. hilarious
regarding two of the same kind: i just won my _third_ VW Lupo as a reward... good grief what a waste
some tipps: if you buy a Lambo for the lambo only race: buy a Gallardo, since there is Gallardo only race in the next set of races
also for some of the early races the ferrari 512bb is really worth it especially some of the oldtimer races early on and with tuning even fast enough for the ferrari only race
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
haha you should see some of the cornering my bspec driver does in my camaro .. hilarious
regarding two of the same kind: i just won my _third_ VW Lupo as a reward... good grief what a waste
some tipps: if you buy a Lambo for the lambo only race: buy a Gallardo, since there is Gallardo only race in the next set of races
also for some of the early races the ferrari 512bb is really worth it especially some of the oldtimer races early on and with tuning even fast enough for the ferrari only race
BlondeBuddhist
Jun 8, 08:47 PM
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 05:32 AM
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that?
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
Soba
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
you can't make a statement like that. that's like saying "i hate general electric air conditioners." what the heck? all CPU's (and air conditioners) do the same thing.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 05:21 PM
The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware.
Or software...bye-bye Rosetta. :(
Or software...bye-bye Rosetta. :(
phatpat88
Jul 15, 12:46 AM
What about 4 SATA II Drives? This way I can have a mirrored 1TB RAID [clicks heals]
The speed of a RAID with the security of mirroring.. it doesn't get mucho better :)
The speed of a RAID with the security of mirroring.. it doesn't get mucho better :)
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 19, 12:36 AM
I think when the update reveals itself to be.... just a mere processor swop the moans to the high heavens would be deafening!
Any likelihood that we will see a new case design at MWSF perchance? :rolleyes:
Someone's gonna get a real hurtin'.
You forgot Mormon.
Hahaha :D
Any likelihood that we will see a new case design at MWSF perchance? :rolleyes:
Someone's gonna get a real hurtin'.
You forgot Mormon.
Hahaha :D
sampdoria
Jun 14, 01:46 PM
I just visited my local radio shack near my office and spoke with a sales person who seemed pretty well prepared for this, but take it for what it's worth...
Pre-order: In-store at 7am EST. He suggested to pre-order as soon as possible, because by the time it reaches the west coast, they could run out. "They" meaning radio shack, he wasn't speaking for apple or att. And yes, pre-ordering guarantees me an iphone on launch-day.
Launch-day: This store guaranteed me to have them on the 24th. And it will open earlier than usual (between 5am and 6am), depending on how the pre-orders go.
Trade-ins: Any cell phones, active and non-active ones (with chargers) will be accepted on launch-day. I have razrs and blackberries that I will happily trade in for a credit towards new iphones. This is why I'm leaning towards radioshack more so than the others.
Tip: Get to know your salesperson and vice-versa, before the whole madness begins, that way you'll get better service and no surprises.
-Samp
Boston
Pre-order: In-store at 7am EST. He suggested to pre-order as soon as possible, because by the time it reaches the west coast, they could run out. "They" meaning radio shack, he wasn't speaking for apple or att. And yes, pre-ordering guarantees me an iphone on launch-day.
Launch-day: This store guaranteed me to have them on the 24th. And it will open earlier than usual (between 5am and 6am), depending on how the pre-orders go.
Trade-ins: Any cell phones, active and non-active ones (with chargers) will be accepted on launch-day. I have razrs and blackberries that I will happily trade in for a credit towards new iphones. This is why I'm leaning towards radioshack more so than the others.
Tip: Get to know your salesperson and vice-versa, before the whole madness begins, that way you'll get better service and no surprises.
-Samp
Boston
grue
Apr 12, 01:26 AM
Oh, and here's one I just ran into that reminds me:
Is it so much to ask to have it go to and from the background cleanly? Christ in a cartoon, you'd think backgrounding the application is a huge exercise in resource allocation by how long it takes to bring back all the windows sometimes, if they reappear at all. FCP is bad enough about this sometimes, but Compressor is even worse.
Minor, sure, but annoying as hell.
Is it so much to ask to have it go to and from the background cleanly? Christ in a cartoon, you'd think backgrounding the application is a huge exercise in resource allocation by how long it takes to bring back all the windows sometimes, if they reappear at all. FCP is bad enough about this sometimes, but Compressor is even worse.
Minor, sure, but annoying as hell.
SkyStudios
Apr 25, 04:41 PM
|