guzhogi
Jul 14, 04:00 PM
According to Appleinsider, the Mac Pro would have 2 4x and 1 8x PCIe slots. I see two problems with this. (1) All higher-end PC mobos out now have at least 1 16x slot, some have 2 for SLI/Crossfire. Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. (2) Why only 3 slots? PCs have 6 or so (as did the Power Mac 9500 & 9600) with a few regular PCI slots. Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. It would be nice to have 2 16x lanes for SLI and a few PCI slots for older expansion cards and cards that don't need the bandwidth of PCIe. Besides, this is supposed to be a Pro Mac, which means professional people would want to add a bunch of cards, not just 3. I'd expect a person working in something like movie production would want to have dual graphics cards, a fiber channel card to connect to an xServe RAID and maybe an M-Audio sound card for audio input. Since I don't work in movie production, I wouldn't know, but it would make sense.
digitalbiker
Aug 27, 12:01 PM
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I also think this PC Mag Poll may be a little misrepresentive of the current situation.
This is a readers poll from PC Mag users, I wonder how many are Mac users compared to PC users.
Second, they also state that Apple users are so fanatical and anti-pc that they are worried that they tend to exagerate the poll numbers in favor of Apple.
Third, the only less-subjective bit of information was the repair percentage numbers and the numbers they used were for last year (2005), so they would not reflect any problems with the new mac-intel machines. It seems like most of the issues currently being discussed are with the Mac-Intels.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I also think this PC Mag Poll may be a little misrepresentive of the current situation.
This is a readers poll from PC Mag users, I wonder how many are Mac users compared to PC users.
Second, they also state that Apple users are so fanatical and anti-pc that they are worried that they tend to exagerate the poll numbers in favor of Apple.
Third, the only less-subjective bit of information was the repair percentage numbers and the numbers they used were for last year (2005), so they would not reflect any problems with the new mac-intel machines. It seems like most of the issues currently being discussed are with the Mac-Intels.
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 08:14 PM
Interestingly this contradicts the information my friend on the design team hinted towards. I know the release is imminent so time will tell.
So are you saying that the apps will be broken up and sold individually?
So are you saying that the apps will be broken up and sold individually?
avkills
Aug 17, 12:57 AM
That FCP test, sorry to say is a joke. Nobody cares about dropping in strange footage into a timeline with different attributes and rendering it.
Most of the time you drop footage that matches your timeline. In other words you don't drop DV25 footage into Uncompressed 10bit timelines unless that is all you have for the footage.
They should have added some color correction and maybe a motion effect and then rendered it. Oh well.
-mark
Most of the time you drop footage that matches your timeline. In other words you don't drop DV25 footage into Uncompressed 10bit timelines unless that is all you have for the footage.
They should have added some color correction and maybe a motion effect and then rendered it. Oh well.
-mark
sukanas
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
money grubbers
nukiduz
Aug 7, 05:15 PM
From Vista Help:
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
For me the Leopard preview was a big disappointment. No innovative features but silly Vista bashing all the time. Come on, Apple!
What about flash drives? Meta data organisation in Finder? Media streams over local networks? Better window management? Spaces is the next answere to the incomplete Dockbar-conception (Expos� was the first and Time Maschine is a next interface ornateness).
Preview and network-wide search in Spotlight? Who is copying here?
I can't believe that: but now Vista looks innovativ!
i completely agree. just hope that the top secret thing makes us think other way.
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
For me the Leopard preview was a big disappointment. No innovative features but silly Vista bashing all the time. Come on, Apple!
What about flash drives? Meta data organisation in Finder? Media streams over local networks? Better window management? Spaces is the next answere to the incomplete Dockbar-conception (Expos� was the first and Time Maschine is a next interface ornateness).
Preview and network-wide search in Spotlight? Who is copying here?
I can't believe that: but now Vista looks innovativ!
i completely agree. just hope that the top secret thing makes us think other way.
hulugu
Mar 23, 12:19 AM
Although I backed the implementation of a no-fly zone a few weeks ago, I wouldn't describe my position as one of wholehearted support. More a queasy half-hearted recognition that something had to be done and that all alternatives lead to rabbit holes of some degree or another. When all is said and done, my usual fallback position is an intense weariness at the evil that men do.
For the record, I actually supported (if silence is considered consent) both Gulf wars at the start; I believed in the fictional WMD, I believed it when Colin Powell held his little vial up at the UN... but I, like many was tied down with work and other concerns and was only paying cursory attention to the news at the time. Like Obama, I also initially supported the war in Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it, initiated by a Republican president, but since then it seems to have become a fiasco of Catch-22 proportions.
Slowly discovering the real agenda and true ineptness of the Bush administration was a pivotal point in my reawakening political understanding of US current affairs after reading Hunter Thompson for so many years. Disgusted and appalled at the casual way in which we all were lied to, I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'I was wrong'.
Thing is about Obama, I never had any starry-eyed notion about him being a peace-maker. He's an American president, the incentives are cemented into the role as one of using power and protecting wealth. Not that many conservatives were paying attention at the time, but he stood up in front of the Nobel academy when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize and laid out a justification for war.
Since the second Gulf War, the entire circus has been one of my occasional interests, because I've never seen a political process elsewhere riddled with so many bald-faced liars, grotesque characters and half-baked casual hate speech. What power or the sniff of it does to people, twisting them out of shape, is infinitely more interesting and has more impact on us than any other endeavour, except for possibly the parallel development of technology.
I used you as an example more out of rhetoric than anything else. However, I think your essay is spot on.
I didn't believe the Bush administration's call for war in Iraq because I was reading Hans Blix's reports and I was suspicious of the whole endeavor: the Bushies struck me as a group wholly unprepared for the difficulty of governing a foreign country after a military invasion. I did hope, like Tom Friedman, that an Iraq without Saddam might be a powerful symbol in the Middle East, but I was deeply concerned about the war.
Reading Anthony Shadid's reporting on Iraq told me that the situation was, days in, already spinning out of control. Once it became apparent that looters were able to steal artifacts from the museums, office chairs pilled with computers from the bureaus and weapons from Iraq's hundreds of ammunition dumps I knew we were in trouble.
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.
We have complicated thoughts about the use of force in the world, which leads us to appear hypocritical when all things are made to appear equal to make straw.
George W. Bush is responsible for another calamity: me posting in PRSI, one of my many occasional weaknesses.
Me too. I wandered in here by accident as a new member and haven't left.
For the record, I actually supported (if silence is considered consent) both Gulf wars at the start; I believed in the fictional WMD, I believed it when Colin Powell held his little vial up at the UN... but I, like many was tied down with work and other concerns and was only paying cursory attention to the news at the time. Like Obama, I also initially supported the war in Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it, initiated by a Republican president, but since then it seems to have become a fiasco of Catch-22 proportions.
Slowly discovering the real agenda and true ineptness of the Bush administration was a pivotal point in my reawakening political understanding of US current affairs after reading Hunter Thompson for so many years. Disgusted and appalled at the casual way in which we all were lied to, I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'I was wrong'.
Thing is about Obama, I never had any starry-eyed notion about him being a peace-maker. He's an American president, the incentives are cemented into the role as one of using power and protecting wealth. Not that many conservatives were paying attention at the time, but he stood up in front of the Nobel academy when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize and laid out a justification for war.
Since the second Gulf War, the entire circus has been one of my occasional interests, because I've never seen a political process elsewhere riddled with so many bald-faced liars, grotesque characters and half-baked casual hate speech. What power or the sniff of it does to people, twisting them out of shape, is infinitely more interesting and has more impact on us than any other endeavour, except for possibly the parallel development of technology.
I used you as an example more out of rhetoric than anything else. However, I think your essay is spot on.
I didn't believe the Bush administration's call for war in Iraq because I was reading Hans Blix's reports and I was suspicious of the whole endeavor: the Bushies struck me as a group wholly unprepared for the difficulty of governing a foreign country after a military invasion. I did hope, like Tom Friedman, that an Iraq without Saddam might be a powerful symbol in the Middle East, but I was deeply concerned about the war.
Reading Anthony Shadid's reporting on Iraq told me that the situation was, days in, already spinning out of control. Once it became apparent that looters were able to steal artifacts from the museums, office chairs pilled with computers from the bureaus and weapons from Iraq's hundreds of ammunition dumps I knew we were in trouble.
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.
We have complicated thoughts about the use of force in the world, which leads us to appear hypocritical when all things are made to appear equal to make straw.
George W. Bush is responsible for another calamity: me posting in PRSI, one of my many occasional weaknesses.
Me too. I wandered in here by accident as a new member and haven't left.
Bilbo63
Apr 19, 06:40 PM
Proof that Samsung ripped off Apple's rip off of Delicious Library?
Apple hired the young fellow that did the UI for delicious library... sadly his name escapes me at the moment. But yeah, the kid brought is book shelves with him.;)
Apple hired the young fellow that did the UI for delicious library... sadly his name escapes me at the moment. But yeah, the kid brought is book shelves with him.;)
leekohler
Apr 27, 05:19 PM
Oh, I thought his administration was the one that dropped the F-bomb on live TV.
Or that he was the one who fabricated a "healthcare crisis" so that he could ram through legislation that doesn't even kick in for years
I thought he was the one who is always on the news whining about why nothing ever goes his way.
He is the inexperienced child. And if he hadn't been born in the US, that would have been great news
There is nothing fabricated about the healthcare crisis. Our system is beyond broken. I have good insurance and nearly went bankrupt last year because of hereditary medical issues. That should not happen in any civilized country
Or that he was the one who fabricated a "healthcare crisis" so that he could ram through legislation that doesn't even kick in for years
I thought he was the one who is always on the news whining about why nothing ever goes his way.
He is the inexperienced child. And if he hadn't been born in the US, that would have been great news
There is nothing fabricated about the healthcare crisis. Our system is beyond broken. I have good insurance and nearly went bankrupt last year because of hereditary medical issues. That should not happen in any civilized country
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
shelterpaw
Jul 20, 10:43 AM
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
It certainly will help. Though most pro apps are optimized for mulit-processors. I know much of Adobe/Macromedia's line is, well I'm not sure about the macromeida products. Apples Pro apps are and most of the DAW's are optimized, like Ableton 5.2/6.0, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools.
It will be great is to see games optimized for this, which I do believe will happen now that most OEM's will be sporting mulitiple cores in the future.
It certainly will help. Though most pro apps are optimized for mulit-processors. I know much of Adobe/Macromedia's line is, well I'm not sure about the macromeida products. Apples Pro apps are and most of the DAW's are optimized, like Ableton 5.2/6.0, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools.
It will be great is to see games optimized for this, which I do believe will happen now that most OEM's will be sporting mulitiple cores in the future.
Mattie Num Nums
Mar 31, 02:38 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
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!
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
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!
SWC
Aug 7, 06:35 PM
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
This only restores system files doesn't restore documents, pictures etc.
Apple has never (as far as I am aware) held features back in their presentation before. I think they just weren't ready to be shown off yet which is no biggie it gives them some steam for macworld 07.
Time machine: a fancy front end to the type of backup that people have been doing for years. Mirra with less features?
Mail: hello outlook light
spotlight: Microsoft did it before you, you just had it integrated in the os first.
spaces: virtuedesktops but a tad fancier in presentation
dashboard: konfabulator + active desktop light
64 bit: yawn...xp 64
ical: exchange calendaring
accessibility: bleh nothing revolutionary here
ichat keynote and core animation are the only two truly unique features they introduced.
Sure it�s nice to have them all bundled neatly into the OS but for a company to base almost their entire signage around someone else copying them, there sure is a lot of prior art showing their innovation. I admit they do it in a very well integrated and visually appealing way and they even add tons of nice touches here and there but they aren't always first.
I am a Mac user, but not blind to the real world like some. Apple is like George Clooney in the smug episode of south park.
This only restores system files doesn't restore documents, pictures etc.
Apple has never (as far as I am aware) held features back in their presentation before. I think they just weren't ready to be shown off yet which is no biggie it gives them some steam for macworld 07.
Time machine: a fancy front end to the type of backup that people have been doing for years. Mirra with less features?
Mail: hello outlook light
spotlight: Microsoft did it before you, you just had it integrated in the os first.
spaces: virtuedesktops but a tad fancier in presentation
dashboard: konfabulator + active desktop light
64 bit: yawn...xp 64
ical: exchange calendaring
accessibility: bleh nothing revolutionary here
ichat keynote and core animation are the only two truly unique features they introduced.
Sure it�s nice to have them all bundled neatly into the OS but for a company to base almost their entire signage around someone else copying them, there sure is a lot of prior art showing their innovation. I admit they do it in a very well integrated and visually appealing way and they even add tons of nice touches here and there but they aren't always first.
I am a Mac user, but not blind to the real world like some. Apple is like George Clooney in the smug episode of south park.
NJRonbo
Jun 12, 07:31 AM
Been skimming over 4 pages here so
forgive me if this has been answered...
The only way this Radio Shack deal seems
to work well is if I can walk in the store,
hand them my 3GS phone and get immediate
credit towards an iPhone 4.
If I have to mail my 3GS back to RS and
then wait for a gift card to arrive in the
mail and then go to the store and buy the
iPhone 4 it is just not worth it.
So, the question is, can I simply go to
my Radio Shack store, hand them my
3GS and get immediate store credit on
the new iPhone?
forgive me if this has been answered...
The only way this Radio Shack deal seems
to work well is if I can walk in the store,
hand them my 3GS phone and get immediate
credit towards an iPhone 4.
If I have to mail my 3GS back to RS and
then wait for a gift card to arrive in the
mail and then go to the store and buy the
iPhone 4 it is just not worth it.
So, the question is, can I simply go to
my Radio Shack store, hand them my
3GS and get immediate store credit on
the new iPhone?
doctor-don
Apr 27, 10:43 AM
I'm glad they're fixing this "bug"
But their response is utter crap. They know it - and now everyone knows it.
As reports came out over a year ago about this - it's only after this tremendous bad press that they "found" it. Mhhhmmmm sure.
Commenting on it officially is not the same as "found" it.
But their response is utter crap. They know it - and now everyone knows it.
As reports came out over a year ago about this - it's only after this tremendous bad press that they "found" it. Mhhhmmmm sure.
Commenting on it officially is not the same as "found" it.
BruinJohn
Sep 19, 09:57 AM
Along with the 5-7 business days for a MacBook, it says the refurbed white ones will ship out in 30 business days... Does this mean they don't have them in stock? Or does it mean that they are having severe problems that require 30 days to fix and then ship out? I hope it means that because they will be introducing new MB and MBP, they want to hold the refurbed's so that people won't get mad cuz they are going to cut the prices on the current stock of MB to make room for the new MB Core 2 Duos. I'm hoping for a MacBook. My 2.5 year old 12" powerbook still works great, but I want to get an Intel mac, and I already have a Mac Mini, and a G5 iMac, so my Powerbook will have to go soon.
sososowhat
Sep 13, 09:50 AM
One could run a Folding@Home process on each core :D
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 25, 03:56 PM
Not surprised.
FoxHoundADAM
Apr 11, 11:56 AM
Ugh. The iPhone 4, while beautiful, still needs a larger screen for my liking. Maybe I just bite the bullet and switch to the Inspire. Save some cash in the process.
orthorim
Apr 9, 01:24 AM
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
TDP != Max power draw
The quad uses less than double the power of the older dual core when fully loaded - that makes perfect sense. It's getting more than double done when fully loaded too, so it's 4 cores -and- improvements in power usage and efficiency. That's exactly what I'd expect from the next generation product.
Under normal use he 2011 mbp gets better battery life too. Hmm.... Maybe I'll get one after all, looks very compelling. Even if Illl have to hack the opti bay.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
TDP != Max power draw
The quad uses less than double the power of the older dual core when fully loaded - that makes perfect sense. It's getting more than double done when fully loaded too, so it's 4 cores -and- improvements in power usage and efficiency. That's exactly what I'd expect from the next generation product.
Under normal use he 2011 mbp gets better battery life too. Hmm.... Maybe I'll get one after all, looks very compelling. Even if Illl have to hack the opti bay.
OneMike
Mar 26, 06:27 PM
No Rosetta, no sale for me. Not ready to move on.
I'm glad rosetta is going away. Maybe the dev will finally update the app.
I'm glad rosetta is going away. Maybe the dev will finally update the app.
Bob Knob
Nov 28, 06:53 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
I work in a related industry...
You're wrong, this is 100% greed. Apple does not make squat off music sales. The artists would get none of the "new iPod money" because it is not in their contracts... just like the blank tape royalties, no artist will see a dime from this.
Why are the big labels failing? They sign artists that suck, and the dozen or so executives at the top are way over paid.
Everything is passed on to the consumer level, you obviously need a business/economics lesson.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
I work in a related industry...
You're wrong, this is 100% greed. Apple does not make squat off music sales. The artists would get none of the "new iPod money" because it is not in their contracts... just like the blank tape royalties, no artist will see a dime from this.
Why are the big labels failing? They sign artists that suck, and the dozen or so executives at the top are way over paid.
Everything is passed on to the consumer level, you obviously need a business/economics lesson.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 08:49 AM
Nothing will satisfy these Birthers. They don't want the truth and Trump isn't going to give up this great publicity easily.
A Republican examined it, for god's sake.
A Republican examined it, for god's sake.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 11:30 AM
The US GSM carriers suck. T-Mobile has great customer service, but their coverage stinks. Cingular has great coverage, but they have BY FAR the worst customer service.
Plus EVDO beats the pants off of EDGE. And Verizon + Sprint + Amp'd + US Cellular + a bunch of other, smaller CDMA carriers account for over 60million potential customers in the US. If they only do a GSM version of the phone, it'll be a big mistake.
Plus EVDO beats the pants off of EDGE. And Verizon + Sprint + Amp'd + US Cellular + a bunch of other, smaller CDMA carriers account for over 60million potential customers in the US. If they only do a GSM version of the phone, it'll be a big mistake.
