Silentwave
Sep 16, 01:45 PM
I don't like the sound of "off the shelf" parts. That sounds like Apple is going to rebrand an existing phone or place the guts of another company's phone in their casing.
I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.
If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
I'll agree about the motorola thing! I've had my share of Moto handsets over the years and I've hated every single one. My primary complaint? underpowered and unresponsive. LAG! I would like it if they would just stick a Core Solo ULV in there and we'll be good! ;)
I'd love it to be unlocked too. But they'll probably make it GSM so i'll need to switch networks. Unless they're REALLY nice and make it GSM/CDMA like my Samsung A790 (about to be on my third of those- they have a knack for survival unless you hurl them onto concrete 5 feet below you as hard as you can throw them). I'd pay tons of money for that.
I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.
If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
I'll agree about the motorola thing! I've had my share of Moto handsets over the years and I've hated every single one. My primary complaint? underpowered and unresponsive. LAG! I would like it if they would just stick a Core Solo ULV in there and we'll be good! ;)
I'd love it to be unlocked too. But they'll probably make it GSM so i'll need to switch networks. Unless they're REALLY nice and make it GSM/CDMA like my Samsung A790 (about to be on my third of those- they have a knack for survival unless you hurl them onto concrete 5 feet below you as hard as you can throw them). I'd pay tons of money for that.
cwt1nospam
Jan 1, 07:18 PM
i think it's pretty common knowledge that Apple devices will be targeted more by virus making idiots in the future as they become more popular.
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
ctdonath
Mar 23, 09:08 AM
it's quite gimmicky to only talk about interface transfer rates when the real performance is dependent on the hard drives.
Well, the discussion is about interface - point being that Thunderbolt-enabled devices will be available soon (days vs. years per the snide remark). Indeed, if the drives aren't fast enough to keep up then yes the bottleneck will be the drives - so the bottleneck won't be the interface, and the bottleneck won't be lack of anything to plug into the Mac's Thunderbolt port.
Funny how people will ignore the overarching real win to pick at a minor theoretical fail. There WILL be a bottleneck somewhere in the processor/memory/local-storage/interface/buffer/external-storage data chain short of perfect balance; I'm glad you're satisfied you'll always have something to point at and go "Ha-ha!". Twit.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ... unless, say, we daisy-chain 5 of these LaCie drives together to saturate the pipeline. You have an application where this matters?
Well, the discussion is about interface - point being that Thunderbolt-enabled devices will be available soon (days vs. years per the snide remark). Indeed, if the drives aren't fast enough to keep up then yes the bottleneck will be the drives - so the bottleneck won't be the interface, and the bottleneck won't be lack of anything to plug into the Mac's Thunderbolt port.
Funny how people will ignore the overarching real win to pick at a minor theoretical fail. There WILL be a bottleneck somewhere in the processor/memory/local-storage/interface/buffer/external-storage data chain short of perfect balance; I'm glad you're satisfied you'll always have something to point at and go "Ha-ha!". Twit.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ... unless, say, we daisy-chain 5 of these LaCie drives together to saturate the pipeline. You have an application where this matters?
Tom Sawyer
Apr 30, 07:54 PM
Then I wouldn't plan on ever going back to an iMac.
Definitely no plan to. Apple (SJ) is far to enamored with glossy screens to give anyone options on the large displays/iMacs. I'm still surprised they actually brought the matte option back to MBP's.
Definitely no plan to. Apple (SJ) is far to enamored with glossy screens to give anyone options on the large displays/iMacs. I'm still surprised they actually brought the matte option back to MBP's.
ZipZap
Apr 19, 10:16 AM
Will be settled out of court with no disclosure of terms. Fees/royaltys will be paid....life goes on.
These are business actions and have little to do with what's right and wrong.
These are business actions and have little to do with what's right and wrong.
FrankySavvy
Mar 22, 01:48 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Psyched! Late April, Early Nay would be perfect timing for me to pick up a brand new iMac. :)
Psyched! Late April, Early Nay would be perfect timing for me to pick up a brand new iMac. :)
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
ECUpirate44
Mar 29, 11:43 AM
You have clearly never used Windows 7.
And neither have you.
Oh wait, you're the same person!
oops thinking snapshot!
And neither have you.
Oh wait, you're the same person!
oops thinking snapshot!
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:27 AM
The paragraph I quoted kind of explains it.
I agree though, I'd like to see more proof if it is true.
But without the data a paragraph means nothing. Show me a map with that data on it from when location services was off.
I agree though, I'd like to see more proof if it is true.
But without the data a paragraph means nothing. Show me a map with that data on it from when location services was off.
chasemac
Aug 24, 02:21 AM
At least this gets it all out of the way, hey.
Stu
____________________________________
Phantom Rouge (http://phantom-rouge.co.uk) - The Artwork of Eleanor Hirst
Unless your not paying attention hey?:)
Stu
____________________________________
Phantom Rouge (http://phantom-rouge.co.uk) - The Artwork of Eleanor Hirst
Unless your not paying attention hey?:)
cube
Apr 22, 11:35 AM
It should be a dual-core Llano, not Sandy Bridge.
Jimmieboy
Aug 31, 04:33 PM
Wahoo! I'm hoping for a couple of things:
1. The mac mini has an upped processor and can support 5.1 channel surround sound
2. Macbooks and macbook pro's to have the memrom
3. iMacs with conroe
4. An ipod update for the video and nano
5. All these rumors of an iphone. Maybe we'll get one maybe we won't? I'm not expecting it to be released on the 12th.
1. The mac mini has an upped processor and can support 5.1 channel surround sound
2. Macbooks and macbook pro's to have the memrom
3. iMacs with conroe
4. An ipod update for the video and nano
5. All these rumors of an iphone. Maybe we'll get one maybe we won't? I'm not expecting it to be released on the 12th.
Jazwire
Apr 22, 11:31 AM
Awesome, been holding off on getting one.
RollTide
Mar 22, 06:23 PM
Maybe all those "OS on SD and everything else on HD was aimed more at iMac????
Here's hopin.
Here's hopin.
LagunaSol
Apr 29, 04:03 PM
You do understand that 2008 minus 2001 plus development time is more than 1 or 2, right? That's 7, maybe 9 years of losses.
My original comment was that this is a poor way to do it, from a finance perspective. There was no guarantee, and if Sony and M$ didn't have profit elsewhere, these wouldn't even exist. Nintendo made money on the Wii almost immediately, as you've claimed M$ did. It sounds like you are talking about Nintendo.
And the beauty of this business model is Microsoft and Sony will start the bleeding all over again in a couple of years with the next console generation.
My original comment was that this is a poor way to do it, from a finance perspective. There was no guarantee, and if Sony and M$ didn't have profit elsewhere, these wouldn't even exist. Nintendo made money on the Wii almost immediately, as you've claimed M$ did. It sounds like you are talking about Nintendo.
And the beauty of this business model is Microsoft and Sony will start the bleeding all over again in a couple of years with the next console generation.
siii
Apr 4, 12:07 PM
Only in America.... Bad form unless it was in defence. How about non lethal take downs, fair courts and appropriate justice, such as jail with community service, get criminals doing something constructive for society and trying to get them back on track?
The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.
I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...
The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.
I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...
markw10
Sep 14, 11:20 AM
I wish a Tablet Mac would come out. My fiancee wants to get a mac now that her son has one and she sees how great they are. Unfortunately she just upgraded her laptop about 4 months ago to a Tablet PC. I am due for a laptop upgrade and said my next laptop will be a Tablet but instead I'm going to the next MBP that will be coming out. She is considering it as well but doesn't want to leave the Tablet so may end up keeping the Tablet as well. I know for the PC side though sales of Tablets are slow so not sure how well that would do. I would imagine though with a Mac things could be different. I think some type of PDA type of device or something similar to the UMPC would come out, kind of a very portable laptop that could fit in a woman's purse.
My hardest thing is these all in one units. I think a lot of good things go with it, the imac is easy to move from one room of the house to the other for example but it's hard to imagine when I want to upgrade my computer having to give up the display as well. I imagine this is the type of thing though that make macs work so well. On the PC side I'm used to building my own pc's, getting the case, motherboard, drives, etc. but with that comes a lot of headaches. I'm more into laptops now anyway but would like a nice desktop that I can always add a new hard drive in, etc. and probably will go with a Mac Pro next year but would like to see something cheaper by then, like a headless imac.
My hardest thing is these all in one units. I think a lot of good things go with it, the imac is easy to move from one room of the house to the other for example but it's hard to imagine when I want to upgrade my computer having to give up the display as well. I imagine this is the type of thing though that make macs work so well. On the PC side I'm used to building my own pc's, getting the case, motherboard, drives, etc. but with that comes a lot of headaches. I'm more into laptops now anyway but would like a nice desktop that I can always add a new hard drive in, etc. and probably will go with a Mac Pro next year but would like to see something cheaper by then, like a headless imac.
twoodcc
Aug 23, 07:30 PM
wow.....$100 million. yikes :eek:
calculus
Oct 12, 01:07 PM
I'll probably come of sounding like a jerk and opening a HUGE can of worms with this, BUT...
I'm glad somebody else was thinking what I was thinking! Why do we constantly have to place a line between men and women, black and white, American and everyone else. If we actually want equality and unity and all those wonderful things, I think it's about time we stop dilineating between groups of people.
It can't be both ways... if women/minorities want equality in the work place, or government, or in society as a whole, there can't also be inequality in the world when it comes to things like this... men and women, black and white, straight and gay - they have to be equal across the board, or not at all. We can't have it both ways.
That said, bravo to Apple, U2, and anyone else involved here. Anytime you can use your power and influence to raise funds and awareness - no matter the alterior motives - it's a good thing.
Exactly, why just limit this to people with AIDS. That discriminates against people who are healthy.
I'm glad somebody else was thinking what I was thinking! Why do we constantly have to place a line between men and women, black and white, American and everyone else. If we actually want equality and unity and all those wonderful things, I think it's about time we stop dilineating between groups of people.
It can't be both ways... if women/minorities want equality in the work place, or government, or in society as a whole, there can't also be inequality in the world when it comes to things like this... men and women, black and white, straight and gay - they have to be equal across the board, or not at all. We can't have it both ways.
That said, bravo to Apple, U2, and anyone else involved here. Anytime you can use your power and influence to raise funds and awareness - no matter the alterior motives - it's a good thing.
Exactly, why just limit this to people with AIDS. That discriminates against people who are healthy.
Diggadonkey
Aug 31, 01:30 PM
Back to the issue of PDA hardware options, does anyone have a clue whether it makes ANY sense to invest in Palm OS based PDA devices (like the Palm TX)? Is the Palm OS going to disappear? I'm holding out on a new PDA for fear that something directly from Apple will hit the market soon. I hate the thought of buying a Pocket PC device, and I would LOVE it if the next gen. video iPod had a boatload of PDA type features- which only makes sense given the rumored larger screen size.
rxse7en
Jul 14, 10:29 AM
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?
As I said in the last post, Core 2 Duo has already been easily clocked to 4ghz :D http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18
As I said in the last post, Core 2 Duo has already been easily clocked to 4ghz :D http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 04:33 PM
Reading is so fundamental. It said "Quad-SLI-capable". Where in the article did it say it was in an SLI configuration?
Reading is really fundamental considering the fact that you can't even read two paragraphs worth of an article you posted:
"These two, combined with SLI, they will let you play something like Far Cry at a ludicrous 2160p resolution."
Reading is really fundamental considering the fact that you can't even read two paragraphs worth of an article you posted:
"These two, combined with SLI, they will let you play something like Far Cry at a ludicrous 2160p resolution."
Willis
Oct 12, 05:18 PM
It looks like a more "true" red to me!
Look at the upper left portion of the picture! MBP black anodized with C2D
W00t!
keep dreaming..... no C2D!
Look at the upper left portion of the picture! MBP black anodized with C2D
W00t!
keep dreaming..... no C2D!
muxbox
Nov 13, 03:35 PM
Apple set up a review process to control the quality of the apps hitting the app store.
Then they fill it with junk anyway.
We have tried to create a serious simple life tool called VoCal - Voice Calendar and after months of silly standards from apple, and review rules that make it hard for us to provide a good service to our customers, not to mention the length of time to get an app reviewed, we have decided to pull 90% of our efforts away from Apple development and work on the Windows Platform where freedom is the key. We will launch our new innovative software for windows gamers very soon.
Yes it was nice of Apple to invite us to create apps and they have shared the wealth of the success but the amount of frustration at the review process and Apples non common sensical rules have never helped. Their ability to make people jump the queues in both reviews and in ordering tickets to the events were the final straw for us.
Apple make gorgeous products yet working with them can be an ugly experience.
Then they fill it with junk anyway.
We have tried to create a serious simple life tool called VoCal - Voice Calendar and after months of silly standards from apple, and review rules that make it hard for us to provide a good service to our customers, not to mention the length of time to get an app reviewed, we have decided to pull 90% of our efforts away from Apple development and work on the Windows Platform where freedom is the key. We will launch our new innovative software for windows gamers very soon.
Yes it was nice of Apple to invite us to create apps and they have shared the wealth of the success but the amount of frustration at the review process and Apples non common sensical rules have never helped. Their ability to make people jump the queues in both reviews and in ordering tickets to the events were the final straw for us.
Apple make gorgeous products yet working with them can be an ugly experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment