dscottbuch
Apr 25, 03:05 PM
"a perfect storm", "overreaction", "typical for the us to sue.."
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
Perfect example of 'journalists' not taking the time to explain what is really happening and then 'reader' not trying to understand. Apple receives NONE of this information. No One receives any of this information. Its simply another file on your phone. Should they (Apple) fix this - YES. Is anyone aware of ANY harm done to ANY person by this (other than the catch-all psychological harm which can't really be quantified) - I doubt it.
Even the theory that this could be used against you by law enforcement is flawed as I would bet that collection of this data by a law enforcement agency would be prohibited as it was NOT opted into by the user.
There is NO HARM here to actually litigate - so the conclusion that the lawyers are money grubbers.
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
Perfect example of 'journalists' not taking the time to explain what is really happening and then 'reader' not trying to understand. Apple receives NONE of this information. No One receives any of this information. Its simply another file on your phone. Should they (Apple) fix this - YES. Is anyone aware of ANY harm done to ANY person by this (other than the catch-all psychological harm which can't really be quantified) - I doubt it.
Even the theory that this could be used against you by law enforcement is flawed as I would bet that collection of this data by a law enforcement agency would be prohibited as it was NOT opted into by the user.
There is NO HARM here to actually litigate - so the conclusion that the lawyers are money grubbers.
marksman
Mar 23, 08:24 AM
Complete BS "iphone" lookalikes date back to ebfore the iphone was anounced. So either some companys have people who can predict the future, or the design and tech behind the iphone was aused BEFORe it was released and apple just changed excisting designs.
Ipad is basicly a large smartphone.
LOL what?
Perhaps you just dont have any experience with other UI's? That people jailbreak to specificly change certain parts of it shows there is something lacking.
The context where UI and grid-like were used were not correct.
Better notifications, different user profiles, better accesibility on settings, better multitasking, better start screen , more interactivity on the home screen,...
People are saying they want the UI changed because it LOOKS dated, not because of anything it allows the user to do.
You dont seem to understand what he is saying.
multitasking is being able to run different programs at the same time. The ipad 1 isnt really capable of this as it laks ram to hold those programs in memeory.
Apple solution is a cripled form of multitasking. Certain task can be done in the background and even certain programs are allowed to run completly in the background yet this all has to be coded AND remains hampered by the lack of ram.
I am pretty sure I know what Apple does and the person I was replying to did not, not sure why you are defending them when they clearly did not understand it.
Even in the browser you have trouble keeping open tabs as they constantly need to refresh as you switch as it runs out of memory.
Yeah on the original iPad, and on the original iPhone as well. With the memory added now it is not a problem. Again people complaining about things they don't even understand.
So you really think an extra 256MB of ram would have destroyed the battery life on the ipad? Strange how it DOESNT do that on the iphone 4 or comparable tablets.
The original iPad had only 256mb of ram because Apple wanted to reach a killer price point, at $499. They managed to do it, and do it in Spades. This one factor alone has made it amazingly difficult for anyone to compete with the iPad in the space to deliver the specs and price point. You notice the iPad 2 has more memory right?
If you got any source to back this up, post it otherwise its a myth like the "multitasking destroys battery life"
WAT? Do you know how computers work?
You should perhaps look beyond macrumors, plenty out there and depending on the consumer some better other worse then the ipad 1 and 2 .
Plenty of what out where? Tablets? Are you serious? The Xoom, some tiny galaxy tab that is not really a comparable device? Are you serious that there are plenty out there? When the iPad 2 was already finished being designed and developed there were NO other legitimate tablet models in the marketplace.
And britney spears sold a lot of almbums at a time, so at that time she was "the best"? BS of course.
LOL what? So Apple sells a lot of expensive computing devices because they suck? Your point doesn't make sense. It is like you are just spinning in circles with this post about to throw up.
Wich will be no different then for the iphone, and we both know within 2 years android outsold the iphone.
So you don't understand the primary differences between the cellphone market and the launch of the iPhone and the tablet market and the launch of the iPad. If you did you would understand why this is not the case.
Not to mention Android is an OS and the iPhone is a piece of hardware. You do know the difference between an operating system and a piece of hardware right?
Ipad is basicly a large smartphone.
LOL what?
Perhaps you just dont have any experience with other UI's? That people jailbreak to specificly change certain parts of it shows there is something lacking.
The context where UI and grid-like were used were not correct.
Better notifications, different user profiles, better accesibility on settings, better multitasking, better start screen , more interactivity on the home screen,...
People are saying they want the UI changed because it LOOKS dated, not because of anything it allows the user to do.
You dont seem to understand what he is saying.
multitasking is being able to run different programs at the same time. The ipad 1 isnt really capable of this as it laks ram to hold those programs in memeory.
Apple solution is a cripled form of multitasking. Certain task can be done in the background and even certain programs are allowed to run completly in the background yet this all has to be coded AND remains hampered by the lack of ram.
I am pretty sure I know what Apple does and the person I was replying to did not, not sure why you are defending them when they clearly did not understand it.
Even in the browser you have trouble keeping open tabs as they constantly need to refresh as you switch as it runs out of memory.
Yeah on the original iPad, and on the original iPhone as well. With the memory added now it is not a problem. Again people complaining about things they don't even understand.
So you really think an extra 256MB of ram would have destroyed the battery life on the ipad? Strange how it DOESNT do that on the iphone 4 or comparable tablets.
The original iPad had only 256mb of ram because Apple wanted to reach a killer price point, at $499. They managed to do it, and do it in Spades. This one factor alone has made it amazingly difficult for anyone to compete with the iPad in the space to deliver the specs and price point. You notice the iPad 2 has more memory right?
If you got any source to back this up, post it otherwise its a myth like the "multitasking destroys battery life"
WAT? Do you know how computers work?
You should perhaps look beyond macrumors, plenty out there and depending on the consumer some better other worse then the ipad 1 and 2 .
Plenty of what out where? Tablets? Are you serious? The Xoom, some tiny galaxy tab that is not really a comparable device? Are you serious that there are plenty out there? When the iPad 2 was already finished being designed and developed there were NO other legitimate tablet models in the marketplace.
And britney spears sold a lot of almbums at a time, so at that time she was "the best"? BS of course.
LOL what? So Apple sells a lot of expensive computing devices because they suck? Your point doesn't make sense. It is like you are just spinning in circles with this post about to throw up.
Wich will be no different then for the iphone, and we both know within 2 years android outsold the iphone.
So you don't understand the primary differences between the cellphone market and the launch of the iPhone and the tablet market and the launch of the iPad. If you did you would understand why this is not the case.
Not to mention Android is an OS and the iPhone is a piece of hardware. You do know the difference between an operating system and a piece of hardware right?
cjoy
Apr 25, 02:47 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but so what if they can tell what cell phone tower you're by??? Are you really so important/ secrative that someone knowing your location is that big of a deal?
it looks like a different world from today,
but really it's less than 70 years ago that we had the NAZI regime here in germany. it's less than 25 years ago that we had an repressive surveillance society in east germany. if there is no apparent good in tracking personal data, one should object to it.
you shouldn't have to reason against collecting and storing personal data if it isnt a real necessity.
there's enough data stored about you, me and anyone in todays digitalized world as is.
it looks like a different world from today,
but really it's less than 70 years ago that we had the NAZI regime here in germany. it's less than 25 years ago that we had an repressive surveillance society in east germany. if there is no apparent good in tracking personal data, one should object to it.
you shouldn't have to reason against collecting and storing personal data if it isnt a real necessity.
there's enough data stored about you, me and anyone in todays digitalized world as is.
FMJessica
Aug 25, 05:24 PM
A month ago I turned in my brand new 3 month old MacBook Pro to the Apple store because it had some sort of weird lines on the screen. They weren't anything I'd ever seen before, and when you had an application open over the lines, they dissapeared. Well, Apple send my computer back not fixed. So I had to send it out again, and this time the Apple store forgot to send it out. So eventually it got sent out and it was on hold for a part forever and yada yada yada three weeks later I'm super pissed.
I called Apple for the millionth time to complain, and finally they connected me to someone who set it up so that I could have a brand new, (and faster from the 1.83 GHz to the 2.0) MBP.
I had to complain a ton of times, and they still couldn't get my computer fixed in a fair amount of time. They told me everything was "expidited", even the parts they needed, but it was still taking almost a month.
I was so dissapointed in Apple! I'm a Mac-or-nothing kind of person, and this treatment was unacceptable. No wonder everyone's so pissed off! I'm glad it's not just me, but at the same time I hope they do something about it.
Anyway, my new computer is way better, and they also threw in 100$ off any iPod + my student discount, so we've made up.
BTW, I got my new new computer last weekend, so this was super recent.
Jessica
I called Apple for the millionth time to complain, and finally they connected me to someone who set it up so that I could have a brand new, (and faster from the 1.83 GHz to the 2.0) MBP.
I had to complain a ton of times, and they still couldn't get my computer fixed in a fair amount of time. They told me everything was "expidited", even the parts they needed, but it was still taking almost a month.
I was so dissapointed in Apple! I'm a Mac-or-nothing kind of person, and this treatment was unacceptable. No wonder everyone's so pissed off! I'm glad it's not just me, but at the same time I hope they do something about it.
Anyway, my new computer is way better, and they also threw in 100$ off any iPod + my student discount, so we've made up.
BTW, I got my new new computer last weekend, so this was super recent.
Jessica
MovieCutter
Aug 15, 11:52 AM
Amazing.
However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
I did...:D
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
I did...:D
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
dextertangocci
Aug 11, 10:22 AM
Please Apple, make it the best phone ever!
I am using a Nokia 1100 at the moment:rolleyes: :eek: :o , and would love an upgrade, but would prefer to wait for the iPhone:cool: :D :)
I am using a Nokia 1100 at the moment:rolleyes: :eek: :o , and would love an upgrade, but would prefer to wait for the iPhone:cool: :D :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
skunk
Feb 28, 06:04 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things.No, it's called "living a human lifestyle".
I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.Why should your hang-ups be of any relevance to anybody else? Perhaps you need to deal with your own perceptions instead of relying on some dusty tome to tell you what to think. You know that Plato was a repressed homosexual, don't you? He spent hours at the gymnasium ogling naked young men, and perhaps like S/Paul, spent a lot of effort telling other people how to love to expiate his guilty feelings.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage.You are extraordinarily keen to prescribe what other people should do. What's it got to do with you?
If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away.You sound like a real catch, but hey, what you choose to do is up to you.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.So, you assert that a married non-Christian couple can do nothing but fornicate? What an appallingly demeaning attitude! Do you regard any couple you meet as probable fornicators by default? Do you question them about whether they use birth control, or whether they were married, and if so whether it was in a Catholic church with the proper sacraments? You clearly swallow Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker, so choosing righteous friends must be a real PITA.
I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.Why should your hang-ups be of any relevance to anybody else? Perhaps you need to deal with your own perceptions instead of relying on some dusty tome to tell you what to think. You know that Plato was a repressed homosexual, don't you? He spent hours at the gymnasium ogling naked young men, and perhaps like S/Paul, spent a lot of effort telling other people how to love to expiate his guilty feelings.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage.You are extraordinarily keen to prescribe what other people should do. What's it got to do with you?
If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away.You sound like a real catch, but hey, what you choose to do is up to you.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.So, you assert that a married non-Christian couple can do nothing but fornicate? What an appallingly demeaning attitude! Do you regard any couple you meet as probable fornicators by default? Do you question them about whether they use birth control, or whether they were married, and if so whether it was in a Catholic church with the proper sacraments? You clearly swallow Catholic dogma hook, line and sinker, so choosing righteous friends must be a real PITA.
janstett
Sep 13, 01:11 PM
Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
Porchland
Aug 7, 04:11 PM
Looks very nice. Spaces will become a "how did we live without this?" feature as expose already has.
Does anyone know when we can expect a video of the WWDC to be uploaded??:confused:
I can't really tell how Spaces will work the Expose.
Apple's Leopard Sneak Peak says:
Configure your Spaces by visiting the Dashboard and Exposé preference pane in System Preferences. Add rows and columns until you have all the desktop real estate you need. Arrange your Spaces as you see fit, then assign what function keys you want to control them. You can also lock specific applications to specific Spaces, so you’ll always know where, say, Safari or Keynote is at all times.
I could the simulteneous use of both getting a little confusing.
My main concern overall about Leopard is that feature creep is going to cut into ease of use.
Does anyone know when we can expect a video of the WWDC to be uploaded??:confused:
I can't really tell how Spaces will work the Expose.
Apple's Leopard Sneak Peak says:
Configure your Spaces by visiting the Dashboard and Exposé preference pane in System Preferences. Add rows and columns until you have all the desktop real estate you need. Arrange your Spaces as you see fit, then assign what function keys you want to control them. You can also lock specific applications to specific Spaces, so you’ll always know where, say, Safari or Keynote is at all times.
I could the simulteneous use of both getting a little confusing.
My main concern overall about Leopard is that feature creep is going to cut into ease of use.
smithrh
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
The Feds are bored.
I understand that you didn't read the article then.
It wasn't filed by the Feds.
I understand that you didn't read the article then.
It wasn't filed by the Feds.
SkyStudios
Apr 25, 04:43 PM
Please, link me any evidence this is submitted to Apple.
Apple only recently added the info into iTunes agreements, last year they where sued for collecting emails, chats and political views, this means they seriously can get access.
BTW a the devices unique ids can be simulated and one can plant a crime on another if the authorities actually depended on it.
Apple only recently added the info into iTunes agreements, last year they where sued for collecting emails, chats and political views, this means they seriously can get access.
BTW a the devices unique ids can be simulated and one can plant a crime on another if the authorities actually depended on it.
macduke
Mar 25, 10:44 PM
This seems a little fast for the first GM. Maybe not such a big update after all? Where are all the secrets? The UI could use more of an overhaul IMO. This is probably just for the devs and they will bust out some fancy fancy at WWDC. I hope! Gotta have that one more thing...
I hope Lion lives up to the name and is BEAST.
I hope Lion lives up to the name and is BEAST.
twoodcc
Aug 7, 12:56 PM
i am looking forward to this game. i will be getting the US version though. i haven't pre-ordered or anything, but i still might
notabadname
Mar 22, 01:15 PM
This is just a preview of the future, Android based tablets will clean the iPads clock. Apple made the so-called iPad 2 as a 1.5. Low res camera, not enough RAM, and low res screen. It's going to be a verrrry long 2012 for Apple. Sure it's selling like hot cakes now, but when buyers see tablets that they don't have to stand inline for, that have better equipment and are cheaper ... Apples house of cards will come crashing down around them.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
You are the funniest poster on here. Thanks for the entertainment. (Not sure if it's your intent, but thanks anyway.)
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
You are the funniest poster on here. Thanks for the entertainment. (Not sure if it's your intent, but thanks anyway.)
MacinDoc
Sep 19, 02:08 AM
there's no reason not to switch to Core 2 Duo as they sell for the same price as Core Duo and are drop in replacement.. the only possible reason for the delay is supply shortage.. it's not unusual to see PC vendors announce new processors even though they are unable to ship them at that time, but at the same time they keep options for the older model, which ships instantly.. Apple thinks differently, they will announce the update when they're ready to ship and starting that day they cease selling the older models.. I think thats fair.. the only difference is that they don't make announcements several weeks in advance..
Apple has no reason not to follow Intel's speed bumps, because on each speed bump the prices shifts towards the lower models, in other words Intel keeps the prices the same but speed bumps at every level.. if Apple does not update, they're keeping extra money in their pockets..
as for the updates, I'm curious wheter it's gonna be just a processor switch or wheter they will also move from ATi to nVidia as they did in iMacs.. ATi is now owned by AMD and maybe somehow Apple bets more on nVidia because of using Intel processors only.. also I don't expect MXM slots for video cards for the same reason there's no processor socket in MBP, they ough to keep this as tight as possible..
Exactly.
What is wrong with you people? Meroms in other brands of laptops haven't, or are only *just* starting to ship, and you people wail that Apple is doomed, when in the worst case scenario, they'll be a few days behind Dell. If they don't ship by next month, then sure, complain, but really, most of those who moan that Apple is "OMG SO OUTDATED MEROM MBPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED 2 MONTHS AGO!!!" are out of touch with reality.
Amen!
Apple has no reason not to follow Intel's speed bumps, because on each speed bump the prices shifts towards the lower models, in other words Intel keeps the prices the same but speed bumps at every level.. if Apple does not update, they're keeping extra money in their pockets..
as for the updates, I'm curious wheter it's gonna be just a processor switch or wheter they will also move from ATi to nVidia as they did in iMacs.. ATi is now owned by AMD and maybe somehow Apple bets more on nVidia because of using Intel processors only.. also I don't expect MXM slots for video cards for the same reason there's no processor socket in MBP, they ough to keep this as tight as possible..
Exactly.
What is wrong with you people? Meroms in other brands of laptops haven't, or are only *just* starting to ship, and you people wail that Apple is doomed, when in the worst case scenario, they'll be a few days behind Dell. If they don't ship by next month, then sure, complain, but really, most of those who moan that Apple is "OMG SO OUTDATED MEROM MBPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED 2 MONTHS AGO!!!" are out of touch with reality.
Amen!
guzhogi
Jul 14, 04:00 PM
According to Appleinsider, the Mac Pro would have 2 4x and 1 8x PCIe slots. I see two problems with this. (1) All higher-end PC mobos out now have at least 1 16x slot, some have 2 for SLI/Crossfire. Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. (2) Why only 3 slots? PCs have 6 or so (as did the Power Mac 9500 & 9600) with a few regular PCI slots. Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. It would be nice to have 2 16x lanes for SLI and a few PCI slots for older expansion cards and cards that don't need the bandwidth of PCIe. Besides, this is supposed to be a Pro Mac, which means professional people would want to add a bunch of cards, not just 3. I'd expect a person working in something like movie production would want to have dual graphics cards, a fiber channel card to connect to an xServe RAID and maybe an M-Audio sound card for audio input. Since I don't work in movie production, I wouldn't know, but it would make sense.
skunk
Apr 27, 03:10 PM
I'd be fascinated to know exactly what you did to "discover" those layers, 5P. I have Photoshop and Illustrator too. Guess what? One layer. Nothing selectable. At least one of us is talking complete bollocks.
shawnce
Jul 27, 04:11 PM
I never said otherwise.
You did say "successors" and "next generation" which I was pointing out they are not :D
You did say "successors" and "next generation" which I was pointing out they are not :D
Jimmieboy
Aug 8, 01:45 AM
Yahoo! Leopard looks awesome! Time machine looks like a lifesaver for me and spaces makes life so much easier. THANKS STEVE!
asiayeah
Aug 25, 09:21 PM
When I read a lot of posts where people complain about Apple service, it seems that it is offten from non-US. Is this my imagination or does Apple need to kick the Arse of their international support groups?
:D
I am sure the customer support is not good in non-US.
Unfortunately Apple is not maintainly a high quality of customer support service throughout the world. It seems Apple is neglecting the areas which is growing fast. This will certainly hinder the growth of Mac OS market share.
:D
I am sure the customer support is not good in non-US.
Unfortunately Apple is not maintainly a high quality of customer support service throughout the world. It seems Apple is neglecting the areas which is growing fast. This will certainly hinder the growth of Mac OS market share.
mcgillmaine
Jun 22, 12:13 PM
Thanks for the info ugp.....Is there anyway you can check other stores to see what they got in stock?
Also what area do you live in? And why do you think Apple sent out so little to your area? Because Raleigh-Durham is a decent size (maybe 7-10 stores) but we also have two Apple stores. So maybe Apple is taking that into consideration with allotted units to Radio Shack. IDK just an idea.
Thanks again for your help! Good luck on the 24th!
Also what area do you live in? And why do you think Apple sent out so little to your area? Because Raleigh-Durham is a decent size (maybe 7-10 stores) but we also have two Apple stores. So maybe Apple is taking that into consideration with allotted units to Radio Shack. IDK just an idea.
Thanks again for your help! Good luck on the 24th!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 01:32 PM
I'm very specific on what I praise Reagan for... including his excellent ability to speak eloquently about the values of the free market, small government, etc. I've repeatedly said that he was far from perfect... but it's less easy for you to argue with reality when you can just make up my positions on one man... isn't it?
Reagan was not about small government at all. He massively increased government spending and the size of the military. He may have spoken eloquently about small government, but they were empty words. There isn't much to praise there.
Speaking of making up positions, almost every post you make contains a micharacterization of what other people say, but phrased as a question so as to make it seem more innocent.
Reagan was not about small government at all. He massively increased government spending and the size of the military. He may have spoken eloquently about small government, but they were empty words. There isn't much to praise there.
Speaking of making up positions, almost every post you make contains a micharacterization of what other people say, but phrased as a question so as to make it seem more innocent.
dscuber9000
Mar 22, 10:52 PM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
Do you think the scale of our intervention is anywhere close to the scale of our intervention in Iraq? We don't even have any troops in Libya! We barely even need a coalition at all! I'm sorry that you're still sore about how the war in Iraq went, but trying to compare this to it is just stupid. Just stupid.
Do you think the scale of our intervention is anywhere close to the scale of our intervention in Iraq? We don't even have any troops in Libya! We barely even need a coalition at all! I'm sorry that you're still sore about how the war in Iraq went, but trying to compare this to it is just stupid. Just stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment