eswank
Nov 23, 08:56 PM
Bought my fianc�e the iPhone 4 and will buy a new iPod Touch on Black Friday (buy it either at Toys R Us or Walmart to get a $50 gift card) so that we can Facetime while I'm out on my deployment.
http://techdeez.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/iphone4box.jpg
http://staticus.talash.com/product_images/d/320/MVC0104_1lg__52742_zoom.jpg
http://techdeez.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/iphone4box.jpg
http://staticus.talash.com/product_images/d/320/MVC0104_1lg__52742_zoom.jpg
SciFrog
Apr 1, 12:45 PM
No kernel panics here, but I noticed some a3 core units being send back early, usually in the first 10%, it started before 10.6.3
jettredmont
Aug 16, 01:31 PM
The post says apple is going to compete with Zune because everyone knows almost everything about zune, with the exception of having a physical zune apple can at least stay on top by brining in inovative features before zune has them.
Back in the day, the fact that we already know everything about an unreleased product was called marketing vaporware, and it was considered a bad thing ...
Until Zune is out, Apple is already "caught up" with it, and is in fact ahead (no technology available is always technologically inferior to any technology available, to paraphrase McNealy). Don't buy into Microsoft's hype machine. They always use it to buy themselves a year in the marketplace, at the cost of us consumers.
Back in the day, the fact that we already know everything about an unreleased product was called marketing vaporware, and it was considered a bad thing ...
Until Zune is out, Apple is already "caught up" with it, and is in fact ahead (no technology available is always technologically inferior to any technology available, to paraphrase McNealy). Don't buy into Microsoft's hype machine. They always use it to buy themselves a year in the marketplace, at the cost of us consumers.
QCassidy352
Apr 2, 07:52 PM
great ad. Totally unnecessary, since it's impossible to buy one in most places, but great ad nonetheless.
Takuro
Jun 22, 12:31 PM
The form factor of an iMac just doesn't work nicely with the general way iOS is meant to be used. As mentioned by moneyman, there seems to be a rough adaptation for it if it's used in conjunction with a touch pad, but this still doesn't seem very likely. The only platform that would benefit largely with an iOS layer would be the MacBook line, which could easily enough use a touch-screen interface directly on the existing display without worrying about tired arms. However, this brings up another issue: It would cannibalize iPad sales and blur the defining line for that "intermediate" category of devices between iPhone and Mac that Jobs just finished touting about.
So in summation, my opinion is that it's highly unlikely.
So in summation, my opinion is that it's highly unlikely.
4God
Nov 27, 03:26 PM
I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards.
Exactly, as someone here said earlier, "the 20" is the new 17"
Exactly, as someone here said earlier, "the 20" is the new 17"
wordoflife
Nov 27, 09:36 AM
I bought it on a friend's store@45eur but it is available @50eur on almost every watch store.
Check it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtSP6Qj8PDk).
I can get it for $65 from Swatch. I'm not sure where else I can buy it in the US. I like it, but I'm not sure how good it looks in person. I'm not sure if I am a fan of those glow in the dark hands either.
Check it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtSP6Qj8PDk).
I can get it for $65 from Swatch. I'm not sure where else I can buy it in the US. I like it, but I'm not sure how good it looks in person. I'm not sure if I am a fan of those glow in the dark hands either.
appleguy123
Jun 23, 01:56 AM
I feel justified that this is the main reason we never heard ANY thing about Mac OS X at the keynote AND the WWDC (as far as I know), and each new update seems to be just fixes and security updates. So, I think apple is working on iOS X, or what ever the touch screen Mac OS is.
This is my take on Apple: (semi-off-topic warning)
The way I see it, is that Apple is the technology company of the future. I mean, look at all these other smart phone makers; (exceptions being Google and HTC) they're still "stuck" in the 20th century. With our rapid advancement of technology, Apple's current technology should have been out 3 to 5 years ago. IMO, Apple is just playing "catch up" on a human scale, aka the iPhone 4 is the technology that should have been releasing 3 to 5 years ago.
Their phones are absolutely phenomenal for the 20th century!
This is my take on Apple: (semi-off-topic warning)
The way I see it, is that Apple is the technology company of the future. I mean, look at all these other smart phone makers; (exceptions being Google and HTC) they're still "stuck" in the 20th century. With our rapid advancement of technology, Apple's current technology should have been out 3 to 5 years ago. IMO, Apple is just playing "catch up" on a human scale, aka the iPhone 4 is the technology that should have been releasing 3 to 5 years ago.
Their phones are absolutely phenomenal for the 20th century!
MattG
Nov 29, 02:43 PM
For the love of god Steve, you need to come out with a TiVo/Media Center PC KILLER. I would love to see that.
MacVault
Aug 7, 06:51 AM
Networking in the Finder is one of the biggest complaints people seem to have. Said it before and will say it until its done, FTFF! :cool:
Yea, FTFF is right! I wish we would see this morning that Apple has finally FTFF in Leopard, but I'm afraid we're still gonna see much of the same old stuff in there that gives us reason to want to FTFF. I hope I'm wrong though.
Yea, FTFF is right! I wish we would see this morning that Apple has finally FTFF in Leopard, but I'm afraid we're still gonna see much of the same old stuff in there that gives us reason to want to FTFF. I hope I'm wrong though.
BJB Productions
Apr 12, 09:43 PM
Thank you, right on time.
And also, it is exactly the FCP interface we've had since the beginning. And the beginning of time. (it really only depends on which elements you want to emphasize.)
Well I really can't judge it until I'm actually able to touch and use it myself, but from the looks, they've gone consumer. *here's hoping for the best* I really want it to work... but Adobe is looking better by the day.
And also, it is exactly the FCP interface we've had since the beginning. And the beginning of time. (it really only depends on which elements you want to emphasize.)
Well I really can't judge it until I'm actually able to touch and use it myself, but from the looks, they've gone consumer. *here's hoping for the best* I really want it to work... but Adobe is looking better by the day.
ph_555_shag
Aug 7, 04:56 AM
B&O.... mmmmmm
ill be up with the Aussie crew at a ridiculously early time, probably sleep for a few hours first, Uni tomorrow.... oh the pain!... wish there was a live feed.... DAMN YOU APPLE
7 hours and 1 min to go!
ill be up with the Aussie crew at a ridiculously early time, probably sleep for a few hours first, Uni tomorrow.... oh the pain!... wish there was a live feed.... DAMN YOU APPLE
7 hours and 1 min to go!
Baseline
Nov 15, 08:41 AM
seriously though, how hard is it to get a program to multi-thread? (if thats the right term; being a complete programming novice, i've no idea)
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
partyBoy
Nov 26, 02:24 AM
^^^^^Could I recommend a case for that?
Come on guys...give the guy a break,stop making fun of him...this is the case he needs.
Come on guys...give the guy a break,stop making fun of him...this is the case he needs.
NAG
Jan 12, 03:15 PM
Yeah, I doubt they would be referencing already released products.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:05 PM
You opinion may be true of some people- not all. I did not choose to be attracted to guys. I also could never have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible for me, if you get my meaning. Stop telling other people that you know everything about them. You don't. Not everyone is the same.
In any of my comments I never said I new anything about them. I am speculating from pure observation. I am basing everything I know off of my friends experiences and what I've heard from them and what they saw to communities and towns during there speeches. No, I don't get your meaning either. So many ways to guess that meaning that I wouldn't be right if I guessed.
In any of my comments I never said I new anything about them. I am speculating from pure observation. I am basing everything I know off of my friends experiences and what I've heard from them and what they saw to communities and towns during there speeches. No, I don't get your meaning either. So many ways to guess that meaning that I wouldn't be right if I guessed.
SFVCyclone
Nov 15, 01:11 PM
I cant wait to get my hands on my own 8 core mac, I currently have a pc with an amd athlon 64, tear. No wait there a 400mhz G3 imac sitting with tiger in my room, I think it can get close to the 8 core power macs specs:D
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:46 PM
One more thing... they'll change the name from iMac to Mac, bringing a perfect symmetry to their product line-up:
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
symmetry, shmimmetry.
I liked things better when the names were all over the board and unique.
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
symmetry, shmimmetry.
I liked things better when the names were all over the board and unique.
Chris Bangle
Sep 5, 08:48 AM
2pm GMT
As i said earlier
As i said earlier
pixpixpix
Apr 21, 05:52 PM
To those laughing at this and pointing out that Android phones don't have a file recording your movements..
and
http://thenextweb.com/google/2011/04/21/its-not-just-the-iphone-android-stores-your-location-data-too/
and
http://thenextweb.com/google/2011/04/21/its-not-just-the-iphone-android-stores-your-location-data-too/
Yakuza
Nov 28, 07:37 AM
my last purchase
a 3 weekend (saturday 09h-18h) iPhone developer course - 794.76$
and 2 receipts from the Veterinarian Hospital for my female cat - 325.25$
a 3 weekend (saturday 09h-18h) iPhone developer course - 794.76$
and 2 receipts from the Veterinarian Hospital for my female cat - 325.25$
ipwn00bs
Oct 24, 02:42 AM
thats so annoying now, you buy one new MacBook Pro then 6 months later its out dated. Im not saying its useless but c'mon.
Platform
Jul 15, 02:41 AM
Does anyone know whether the regular BluRay & HD-DVD players have HDMI connectors? Also, when is HDMI going to become more common on video cards?
Yes:
There is hardly any reason for the video cards to go with HDMI, they have DVI its the same, just HDMI carries audio as well, we don't need our audio mixed with our video processing ;)
Yes:
There is hardly any reason for the video cards to go with HDMI, they have DVI its the same, just HDMI carries audio as well, we don't need our audio mixed with our video processing ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment