hismikeness
Apr 6, 01:29 PM
If tablet sales were Little League baseball, the game would be over because of the mercy rule.
jackc
Aug 7, 06:12 PM
I keep reading stuff like this. I don't think Time Machine works with the reagular harddrive. You have to use it with an external drive.
Yes, I was wondering the same because it wouldn't make much sense would it.:)
It seems to me it would make some older versions available on your HD, but then you would want to make a copy to an external HD for space reasons and for backup in case of failure. But I'm just speculating of course
Yes, I was wondering the same because it wouldn't make much sense would it.:)
It seems to me it would make some older versions available on your HD, but then you would want to make a copy to an external HD for space reasons and for backup in case of failure. But I'm just speculating of course
bedifferent
Apr 27, 09:57 AM
Then why are you telling me to worry about Japan and the jobless americans instead of the iPhone location database that Apple needed to address and did to my satisfaction ? :rolleyes:
Newsflash, I can do both and did!
What does this have to do with priorities ? Like you said : I can do both.
No, you didn't.
What was your point really ?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why do people care? I have nothing to hide, and I'm surely not enough "important" for Apple to track me step by step!
This was my point (and I think I was pretty clear when I mentioned priorities and reality). If you don't agree, move on, no need to get your panties in a bunch, just don't comment (I'm sure there are a lot of comments you disagree with so why are you gunning for me?). Moving on here, better things to do and this is a pointless matter you're making into an argument...
You gots some demons in you chil'...
Newsflash, I can do both and did!
What does this have to do with priorities ? Like you said : I can do both.
No, you didn't.
What was your point really ?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why do people care? I have nothing to hide, and I'm surely not enough "important" for Apple to track me step by step!
This was my point (and I think I was pretty clear when I mentioned priorities and reality). If you don't agree, move on, no need to get your panties in a bunch, just don't comment (I'm sure there are a lot of comments you disagree with so why are you gunning for me?). Moving on here, better things to do and this is a pointless matter you're making into an argument...
You gots some demons in you chil'...
samcraig
Apr 27, 10:05 AM
No they won't stand out in the data, because each cell tower or Wi-Fi hotspot is only included once in the database. And there is no information regarding how much time you spend in each location.
If locations are recorded AND time/date stamp - then how much time you spend in each location is tracked inherently. If you "log in" at one time here and then another 20 minutes later - there's a history of time spent. Maybe not foolproof... but to say that no information is there isn't accurate.
If locations are recorded AND time/date stamp - then how much time you spend in each location is tracked inherently. If you "log in" at one time here and then another 20 minutes later - there's a history of time spent. Maybe not foolproof... but to say that no information is there isn't accurate.
technicolor
Sep 19, 10:05 PM
Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
layte
Mar 31, 03:30 PM
Except Google have made it very clear with Honeycomb that they're not willing to release the source code for the foreseeable future so 'a bit' could be a lot longer than you'd think. More to the point that does manufacturers very little good. If, f'instance, Google decide to only release a version of Android as open source when they release the next version any manufacturer wanting to use it is going to have to grab the open version, make whatever tweaks they want, get it on a device, get it built in bulk and launch it into the relevant sales channel(s). By the time they do that Google is likely to have released another version of Android and they'll be hopelessly out of date.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:37 PM
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.
Assuming that you are talking about clock speed, there have been Macs running at over 3 GHz, just not for sale to the public. The Intel machines that were shipped to developers after WWDC 2005 had 3.4 GHz Pentium IVs.
Assuming that you are talking about clock speed, there have been Macs running at over 3 GHz, just not for sale to the public. The Intel machines that were shipped to developers after WWDC 2005 had 3.4 GHz Pentium IVs.
HyperZboy
Apr 8, 01:22 AM
I also don't think brick and mortar stores are dying, just certain types that are easy to purchase same product online like movies, toys, known products that don't need to be checked out.
The average person buying a computer is still not that computer bright like the average Macrumors member.
And there will always be people looking to check out and play with new technology in person.
When Amazon can pull that rabbit out of a hat then I'll admit brick & mortar is done. So far brick and mortar is only done for content sales which can be checked out online and various new ways.
I don't think anybody's going to be buying a lawn tractor or big screen TV on Amazon anytime soon.
Hell, even my success rate buying computers on Ebay has always been sketchy even. About 30% of the time, the items showed up damaged in shipping due to poor packaging. That's why I believe most general consumers will always go brick and mortar for more expensive things that could easily be damaged in shipping.
The average person buying a computer is still not that computer bright like the average Macrumors member.
And there will always be people looking to check out and play with new technology in person.
When Amazon can pull that rabbit out of a hat then I'll admit brick & mortar is done. So far brick and mortar is only done for content sales which can be checked out online and various new ways.
I don't think anybody's going to be buying a lawn tractor or big screen TV on Amazon anytime soon.
Hell, even my success rate buying computers on Ebay has always been sketchy even. About 30% of the time, the items showed up damaged in shipping due to poor packaging. That's why I believe most general consumers will always go brick and mortar for more expensive things that could easily be damaged in shipping.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
RMDI
Apr 27, 09:22 AM
Does Apple really think this double talk, where they say they keep a database of location but don't log the location is going to fly?
But it is true! They didn't log that I was at this date and hour in this restaurant and next hour I was at position xyz, but it was a cache of something related but also different. For example for every celltower-data there is only one timestamp. So you can't even determinate when a place was first (or even last) visited. For real location tracking this data is really inaccurate and useless. Location tracking was not the purpose of this cache and not the intention of Apple. I think it is legitim and important when they emphasize that in their Q&A.
What this data is useable for is drawing nice circles on a google map and visualizing a path of traveling between cities if you have physical access to your personal computer. And all this points are adressed in a software update.
But it is true! They didn't log that I was at this date and hour in this restaurant and next hour I was at position xyz, but it was a cache of something related but also different. For example for every celltower-data there is only one timestamp. So you can't even determinate when a place was first (or even last) visited. For real location tracking this data is really inaccurate and useless. Location tracking was not the purpose of this cache and not the intention of Apple. I think it is legitim and important when they emphasize that in their Q&A.
What this data is useable for is drawing nice circles on a google map and visualizing a path of traveling between cities if you have physical access to your personal computer. And all this points are adressed in a software update.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 8, 09:05 PM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I have 500k burning a hole in my digital pocket, but i'm saving up for a race car. The advanced kart races have so much prize money... its awesome :D I'm loving my 458 Italia too. I dominated the MR races with it. I only spent about 40k on tuning it, and 80% of that was tires.
Any suggestions on a race car when i get enough cash? I'd prefer something AWD unless it wont be allowed in some of the extreme races. That would limit me quite a bit, but a GTR would work if there even is a GTR Race Car. I'll have to look.
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I have 500k burning a hole in my digital pocket, but i'm saving up for a race car. The advanced kart races have so much prize money... its awesome :D I'm loving my 458 Italia too. I dominated the MR races with it. I only spent about 40k on tuning it, and 80% of that was tires.
Any suggestions on a race car when i get enough cash? I'd prefer something AWD unless it wont be allowed in some of the extreme races. That would limit me quite a bit, but a GTR would work if there even is a GTR Race Car. I'll have to look.
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
Lollypop
Jul 20, 08:12 AM
seems the tragic days of the P4 are gone for intel, good for us! :p With all the high end stuff from intel thats apparently going into the mac im a bit worried about the price of the systems though!
nefan65
Apr 25, 02:08 PM
They're suing...doesn't mean it'll go to court. They may find there's not enough grounds for suit, and deny...
parapup
Apr 11, 12:13 PM
Apple really needs to make some significant changes to iOS5 to bring me back this time.
For me those changes would be -
a) Check box that says "Allow app installs from unknown sources"
b) Mind blowing notification system - never before seen preferably, but something that even remotely competes with webOS would do
c) Widgets
d) Bigger screen - although this is not iOS specific, a iOS5 that does some magic with bigger screen is what I am looking for.
Tough gig Apple - doesn't hurt to try :)
For me those changes would be -
a) Check box that says "Allow app installs from unknown sources"
b) Mind blowing notification system - never before seen preferably, but something that even remotely competes with webOS would do
c) Widgets
d) Bigger screen - although this is not iOS specific, a iOS5 that does some magic with bigger screen is what I am looking for.
Tough gig Apple - doesn't hurt to try :)
Lincoln
Aug 5, 03:29 PM
I am really looking forward to this year's WWDC - a chance to see Leopard and see how it stacks up against Vista.
Also hoping that the Mac Pro is finally realeased and to see who is right about the processor (Dual 2 Core Duo low end, Xeon CPU middle and Dual Xeon's high end?).
Finally, it would be nice if the Mac Pro's get the new Core 2 Duo chips.:D
I think that that we'll have to wait for Paris for the iMac update and new iPods.
Lets see what we get.:rolleyes:
Edited bad typing
Also hoping that the Mac Pro is finally realeased and to see who is right about the processor (Dual 2 Core Duo low end, Xeon CPU middle and Dual Xeon's high end?).
Finally, it would be nice if the Mac Pro's get the new Core 2 Duo chips.:D
I think that that we'll have to wait for Paris for the iMac update and new iPods.
Lets see what we get.:rolleyes:
Edited bad typing
sachamun
Nov 28, 11:57 PM
In the words of Tony Montana...
"Shu know wha' Capitalism is? Ge' *********"
http://www.blknblu.com/voxart/lts/img/tony3.gif
"Shu know wha' Capitalism is? Ge' *********"
http://www.blknblu.com/voxart/lts/img/tony3.gif
Actarus
Apr 12, 02:45 PM
Just what do all you whiners NEED in a smartphone that you can't wait for a 3 month "delay" in release of a phone? Cracks me up.
And if any of you actually switch, I'll bet 2 months after the release of the iPhone 5 you'll be so jealous of its superiority over your current smartphone that you'll end up coming back to Apple. Apple knows this, which is why they laugh in your face.
Apple iPhones are everywhere. I think I saw a gal in line at the supermarket on food stamps whip out an iPhone.
And over 95% of iPhone owners are "dumb" users. They don't visit sites like this and if they are on iPhone 3G will probably upgrade to iPhone 4 if that is all that is available in June/July. And they will be happy. They will hear a little about iPhone 5 in Sept. but won't really care. That's the pulse of the American people. Geeks on this forum are in the minority.
Stop telling silly things. 3 months? you really know that? It could be much more. The lack of info will make me buy an Android with a 4" screen, and that's all. If you don't like my post don't read it. Really fed up of fanboys. The day you will realize that Apple won't never give you anything in exchange, what will you do?
And if any of you actually switch, I'll bet 2 months after the release of the iPhone 5 you'll be so jealous of its superiority over your current smartphone that you'll end up coming back to Apple. Apple knows this, which is why they laugh in your face.
Apple iPhones are everywhere. I think I saw a gal in line at the supermarket on food stamps whip out an iPhone.
And over 95% of iPhone owners are "dumb" users. They don't visit sites like this and if they are on iPhone 3G will probably upgrade to iPhone 4 if that is all that is available in June/July. And they will be happy. They will hear a little about iPhone 5 in Sept. but won't really care. That's the pulse of the American people. Geeks on this forum are in the minority.
Stop telling silly things. 3 months? you really know that? It could be much more. The lack of info will make me buy an Android with a 4" screen, and that's all. If you don't like my post don't read it. Really fed up of fanboys. The day you will realize that Apple won't never give you anything in exchange, what will you do?
SkyStudios
Apr 25, 04:41 PM
|
monster620ie
Apr 5, 08:57 PM
4K is coming sooner than later. Youtube has 4K media, of course it looks bad because of the YT compression penalty.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
are there any 4K tv's out ?
Red Scarlet + 4K tv (how sweet it would be. oh well, I can dream on i guess) :rolleyes:
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
are there any 4K tv's out ?
Red Scarlet + 4K tv (how sweet it would be. oh well, I can dream on i guess) :rolleyes:
treblah
Aug 26, 09:14 PM
when will the Apple retail stores reflect the changes to the product line?
-mike
If they are being refreshed, the stores probably already have recieved them in a black lock box that says do not open until Tuesday morning.
-mike
If they are being refreshed, the stores probably already have recieved them in a black lock box that says do not open until Tuesday morning.
andy721
Mar 25, 11:57 PM
Mac OS 10.7 is out but for developers so its not GM yet, it's 3.35GB
AppliedVisual
Oct 15, 01:08 PM
How long did macPro delay compared to HPs similar workstation?
HP, Dell and IBM all had dual Core 2 Xeon workstation systems available 2~3 weeks ahead of Apple's Mac Pro release. Apple has yet to release their new Xserve. HP, Dell, IBM and others have had dual (and even some quad CPU configurations) of Core 2 Xeon 1U servers and blades available for months now...
HP, Dell and IBM all had dual Core 2 Xeon workstation systems available 2~3 weeks ahead of Apple's Mac Pro release. Apple has yet to release their new Xserve. HP, Dell, IBM and others have had dual (and even some quad CPU configurations) of Core 2 Xeon 1U servers and blades available for months now...
tundrabuggy
Mar 31, 03:11 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
This is a short-sighted statement if I've ever seen one. The Apple "Fad" will go away?? Apple is paving the way for all the me-too products to rip-off, oh, I forget, in its proper term, its labeled "competition". First iPhone and iPad are created as explosively successful products, then all the copy-cats come, as Jobs predicted they would. Not an ounce of creativeness from the others, now, linguists and Lawyers are being hired to copy the name "App store" as well, they need to have it to compete. If Apple went away, innovation in this market would stifle for 5 years at least.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
This is a short-sighted statement if I've ever seen one. The Apple "Fad" will go away?? Apple is paving the way for all the me-too products to rip-off, oh, I forget, in its proper term, its labeled "competition". First iPhone and iPad are created as explosively successful products, then all the copy-cats come, as Jobs predicted they would. Not an ounce of creativeness from the others, now, linguists and Lawyers are being hired to copy the name "App store" as well, they need to have it to compete. If Apple went away, innovation in this market would stifle for 5 years at least.