edenwaith
Jul 14, 04:34 PM
ONLY DDR2-667?!? :confused:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
No, they better equip every new Mac with 10 Terabytes of DDR9-5000 RAM! And they will also include a Raid 5 configuration at 20 Exabytes! And the entire machine will be smaller than your fingernail.
But it will then come equipped with a 16Mhz Motorola 680x0 chip.
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
No, they better equip every new Mac with 10 Terabytes of DDR9-5000 RAM! And they will also include a Raid 5 configuration at 20 Exabytes! And the entire machine will be smaller than your fingernail.
But it will then come equipped with a 16Mhz Motorola 680x0 chip.
appleguy123
Feb 28, 06:11 PM
What I do is none of your damn business. And your opinion has no bearing on my life. Why you feel the need to tell others what to do is beyond me. Take care of your own house, let me take care of mine.
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
Cyberskip
Apr 6, 12:13 AM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
Here are a few examples.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/
Skip
Here are a few examples.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/
Skip
Eniregnat
Aug 7, 03:34 PM
It looks like the improvements to Universal Access (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/universalaccess/) alone will encourage me to upgrade. Finally better TTS voices! I just purchased two voices from Cepstral (http://www.cepstral.com/). I wonder if Apple will provide voices with an accent. I have grown fond of the British accented “Millie” voice. Luckely, I think the lybrary extensions that Cepstral offers are UB.
NATO
Nov 28, 06:18 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
fluidinclusion
Aug 11, 07:42 PM
I probably won't buy a phone without GPS capabilities. I will pay for the option, however.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 02:59 PM
A dictator is slaughtering his own people.
A government in power is responding against a rebellion.
If a rebellion sprang up in the United States, our government would respond with force as well.
"Slaughtering his own people" sounds a little propogandish to me. Are you saying that Qaddafi is taking people who have no connection to the rebellion at all and slaughtering them?
How can any government meet armed internal rebellion without qualifying as "slaughtering their own people"?
A government in power is responding against a rebellion.
If a rebellion sprang up in the United States, our government would respond with force as well.
"Slaughtering his own people" sounds a little propogandish to me. Are you saying that Qaddafi is taking people who have no connection to the rebellion at all and slaughtering them?
How can any government meet armed internal rebellion without qualifying as "slaughtering their own people"?
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 04:50 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
The problem with having too much memory and resources available to spare, is that many programmers tend to become sloppy and careless about optimizing their code. This is one reason why Microsoft Office requires more and more RAM and CPU every time a new version is released.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
The problem with having too much memory and resources available to spare, is that many programmers tend to become sloppy and careless about optimizing their code. This is one reason why Microsoft Office requires more and more RAM and CPU every time a new version is released.
Multimedia
Aug 19, 12:33 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203% @ about 100fps analysis (1st Pass of 2) speed. If I add a Toast encode while that is happening, Handbrake takes a huge hit down to below 150% @ 70-80 fps analysis while Toast can only use about 130% instead of more alone. So the Tiger OS X seems to have difficulty managing more than one multicore application's core usage allocation up to its maximum capability - IE Tiger is not so MultiCore Enabeled as it could be IE Leopard probably will be much moreso - let's hope that is one of its TOP SECRETS.
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.
Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.
Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst
Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.
Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.
Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst
Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.
gibbz
Apr 27, 08:20 AM
Wow. That's surprising. This whole time people downplayed it because there was no evidence that apple was actually transmitting this data. It wasn't a big deal because the db file was local only. Now when Apple addresses it they had to not only admit that the file exists but that they actually were transmitting data.
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
Vegasman
Apr 25, 04:45 PM
Why should Location Services stop your phone from logging cell tower information, the same information your cell company logs?
Now if it's in Airplane Mode, then I'd wonder...
I don't think the "smart people" are all that smart if that's their issue!
People don't tend to lose their "cell tower information" stored on their carrier's servers too often.
They do however lose their phone in bars (ask Apple), in airports and other places.
And then there is the issue of the iTunes backup....
Imagine for a second you were going through a nasty divorce, and the crazy spouse got the Mac Book Pro as part of some early asset devying up. And just now you are finding out she has the backup of YOUR locations. Those same locations her sneaky lawyer can use to create this wild ass scenario that makes you look bad for reasons A, B and C.
Personal stuff needs to stay private and secure. It's incredible what malicious people can do with it it.
Now if it's in Airplane Mode, then I'd wonder...
I don't think the "smart people" are all that smart if that's their issue!
People don't tend to lose their "cell tower information" stored on their carrier's servers too often.
They do however lose their phone in bars (ask Apple), in airports and other places.
And then there is the issue of the iTunes backup....
Imagine for a second you were going through a nasty divorce, and the crazy spouse got the Mac Book Pro as part of some early asset devying up. And just now you are finding out she has the backup of YOUR locations. Those same locations her sneaky lawyer can use to create this wild ass scenario that makes you look bad for reasons A, B and C.
Personal stuff needs to stay private and secure. It's incredible what malicious people can do with it it.
mkjellman
Sep 18, 11:15 PM
For the love of God, please, learn to spell.
for the love of god get a life. oh sorry must be the lack of coffee thats making me tired and irritable
for the love of god get a life. oh sorry must be the lack of coffee thats making me tired and irritable
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Glen Quagmire
Aug 23, 03:32 PM
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
In two years' time, Intel will release Nehalem its next micro-architecture - to replace Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. It is supposed to ditch the FSB in favour of Intel's own interconnect, named CSI. Two years after Nehalem will come another micro-architecture.
In some respects, I'm quite happy to have ordered a Woodcrest Mac Pro, especially if the slow FSB does slow things down when Woodcrest's successor is released. If the Mac Pro can last me three or four years, I'll be in time for the post-Nehalem generation, which should be fairly spectacular.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
In two years' time, Intel will release Nehalem its next micro-architecture - to replace Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. It is supposed to ditch the FSB in favour of Intel's own interconnect, named CSI. Two years after Nehalem will come another micro-architecture.
In some respects, I'm quite happy to have ordered a Woodcrest Mac Pro, especially if the slow FSB does slow things down when Woodcrest's successor is released. If the Mac Pro can last me three or four years, I'll be in time for the post-Nehalem generation, which should be fairly spectacular.
the vj
Mar 25, 10:44 PM
Wait until the first revision comes up! as always, the desperates install the new OS that come full of bugs and then complains starts "I lost all my data".
Just my 2cents.
Not to mention that this sort of upgrades just make you buying a new machine to run the system as it should.
Just my 2cents.
Not to mention that this sort of upgrades just make you buying a new machine to run the system as it should.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:10 PM
Safari in Leopard-drag and drop tabs to reorganise, as with FireFox, and a My tabs features where you can save a set of tabs for easy recall later-like eg. IE7 on PC's.
Built in games-Chess, Puzzle on the Dashboard, new-a soltaire game similar to the iPos, Parachutes and mahjogg game. Classic Mac users may remember some Macs had a Eric's Solitare Sampler
Built in games-Chess, Puzzle on the Dashboard, new-a soltaire game similar to the iPos, Parachutes and mahjogg game. Classic Mac users may remember some Macs had a Eric's Solitare Sampler
eoblaed
Apr 25, 02:48 PM
Thinking it's only stored on the device and not used by Apple is naive. What's the point of logging your every location if it's not going to be used in some way.
When you bought your device (even if you didn't purchase one, I'm speaking to the general 'you'), you knew that it had GPS capabilities. You knew that the phone knew where you were at any given time.
You also knew it had network capabilities. Nothing stops any GPS device with networking capabilities from broadcasting this data without you knowing. We trust the manufacturers of these devices to not do that.
Saying you don't trust Apple/Google/etc to not secretly broadcast your data just because it's backed up like your contacts/phone-conversation-information/texts/etc runs counter to the same trust you placed in those companies when you bought the device; if they're willing to broadcast that data because it's saved on your device they could just as easily broadcast that data as it's being gathered, real time without storing it. In fact, it'd be easier to do that since there wouldn't be an easy artifact left behind for people to gawk at.
Seriously, if you trust these companies to not broadcast your data behind your back while you're using it, why do you think they're going to broadcast it because it's part of your backup?
When you bought your device (even if you didn't purchase one, I'm speaking to the general 'you'), you knew that it had GPS capabilities. You knew that the phone knew where you were at any given time.
You also knew it had network capabilities. Nothing stops any GPS device with networking capabilities from broadcasting this data without you knowing. We trust the manufacturers of these devices to not do that.
Saying you don't trust Apple/Google/etc to not secretly broadcast your data just because it's backed up like your contacts/phone-conversation-information/texts/etc runs counter to the same trust you placed in those companies when you bought the device; if they're willing to broadcast that data because it's saved on your device they could just as easily broadcast that data as it's being gathered, real time without storing it. In fact, it'd be easier to do that since there wouldn't be an easy artifact left behind for people to gawk at.
Seriously, if you trust these companies to not broadcast your data behind your back while you're using it, why do you think they're going to broadcast it because it's part of your backup?
Bosunsfate
Aug 8, 12:46 AM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
I have seen plenty of beta Vista versions and they have nothing like Spaces or Time Machine....or frankly anything I saw today.
Why don't you point out something specific rather blather on with such nonsense.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
I have seen plenty of beta Vista versions and they have nothing like Spaces or Time Machine....or frankly anything I saw today.
Why don't you point out something specific rather blather on with such nonsense.
Marx55
Aug 27, 10:53 AM
1. My iMac Core Duo 17" was very quiet. Never heard the fans except using photoshop under rosetta, playing 3D games under XP and during the hardware test. Those fans are powerful when required, make noise like a big hair dryer and you think the computer's gonna lift off and fly away. But on normal use all you hear is the hard drive. I had a desk that happened to resonnate at the frequency of the hard drive which was horrible, but when put on the corner of the desk it was fine. You could crack it open and replace the noisy Maxtor drive with a Seagate Barracuda if you want the absolute silent computer.
2. I hooked up a 20" Dell Screen to the iMac. Worked nicely. the iMac supports up to 23" in dual screen mode.
3. Only has a Firewire 400 Port. You won't get dual 800 on iMac... get a Mac Pro. You could put it in another room, make a hole in the wall for the screen cable and firewire cables and use wireless keyboards and mouses. ;)
Thanks. Yet, I am looking for the return of the Cube (reasonably priced this time, to be a best-seller) or the Mac mini "Pro". BTW, I do not want to pay "twice" for the monitor.
2. I hooked up a 20" Dell Screen to the iMac. Worked nicely. the iMac supports up to 23" in dual screen mode.
3. Only has a Firewire 400 Port. You won't get dual 800 on iMac... get a Mac Pro. You could put it in another room, make a hole in the wall for the screen cable and firewire cables and use wireless keyboards and mouses. ;)
Thanks. Yet, I am looking for the return of the Cube (reasonably priced this time, to be a best-seller) or the Mac mini "Pro". BTW, I do not want to pay "twice" for the monitor.
benthewraith
Nov 28, 07:54 PM
i agree with this on one condition:
Universal agrees to give up its right to prosecute anyone who owns an iPod for piracy.
i.e. if I buy an iPod, then I can pirate Universal's catalogue all I want because I have effectively already paid for their content.
a few bucks is a small price to pay to get access to everything they got
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law. :p Stress that the same law that applies to cassette tape players and the record function should be the same as downloading music to use on cds (to which they paid for, and to which money is added to CD/DVD sales to make up for pirated music).
Universal agrees to give up its right to prosecute anyone who owns an iPod for piracy.
i.e. if I buy an iPod, then I can pirate Universal's catalogue all I want because I have effectively already paid for their content.
a few bucks is a small price to pay to get access to everything they got
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law. :p Stress that the same law that applies to cassette tape players and the record function should be the same as downloading music to use on cds (to which they paid for, and to which money is added to CD/DVD sales to make up for pirated music).
daveaudio
Aug 11, 01:04 PM
Hahahaha you obviously have not been a customer of either T-Mo or Cingular. And if you looked at their coverage maps, Cingular's coverage is quite a bit better than T-Mobile's. Yes, they do share SOME towers, but not all.
Hahahha coverage maps don't mean jack.Everyone in the wireless business knows they are gross approximations of the reality.
Reacent Post
Hahahha coverage maps don't mean jack.Everyone in the wireless business knows they are gross approximations of the reality.
Eidorian
Jul 27, 10:12 AM
i cant wait to do this to my mac mini. i bought the core solo with the intention of upgrading the chip myself (once i heard core 2 was pin to pin compatible) but my question now is does anyone know if the version shipping is still pin to pin compatible???!?!?!http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
ergle2
Sep 19, 10:08 PM
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
Why do you care?
Why do you care?
weg
Aug 8, 04:23 AM
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.
Not trolling, just pointing it out :)
This is in line with their other "innovations":
Spaces? Wow. A blatant Desktop Manager (http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/) rip-off, and Linux supports virtual desktops since 20 years.
Multiuser support for iCal? I'm sure Microsoft will copy that immediately.. oh, wait... Outlook supports that since years.
Time Machine? This feature is overly complicated.. nothing but a fancy undo option. Lots of eye candy.
Not trolling, just pointing it out :)
This is in line with their other "innovations":
Spaces? Wow. A blatant Desktop Manager (http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/) rip-off, and Linux supports virtual desktops since 20 years.
Multiuser support for iCal? I'm sure Microsoft will copy that immediately.. oh, wait... Outlook supports that since years.
Time Machine? This feature is overly complicated.. nothing but a fancy undo option. Lots of eye candy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment