thisisahughes
Apr 27, 09:04 AM
There's a nuclear disaster in Japan and treacherous weather throughout, people are jobless and homeless and the dollar's in the sh***er and our Supreme Court ruled that companies can give unlimited financial aid to any politician putting business interests in our government and people are worried about Apple possibly tracking them on their iDevice?
Let 'em, my life is BORING, they wouldn't be interested :p
one of the best posts I have ever read.
Let 'em, my life is BORING, they wouldn't be interested :p
one of the best posts I have ever read.
bigmc6000
Aug 11, 11:57 AM
If Apple pick a carrier, I hope is not Cingular. But from past situations, that's very likely.
The ideal is a carrier free phone. That way the iphone can reach many more people and make it possible to upgrade phones without asking people to terminate their contracts.
Seriously - unlocked phones won't float in the US. The carrier gives huge discounts and most of us don't really care about switching services (a lot people just get all their friends on the same network so all calling is free). I don't care how sweet the iPhone is. I'm not gonna pay 300-400 dollars for a phone when I can get one for 20 or less and stay with the carrier I plan to stay with anyway. Also note that I get a pretty nice company discount with the big guys on my plan and most all of my friends/family are with 1 carrier so it'd really be stupid of me to go with a diff carrier...
The ideal is a carrier free phone. That way the iphone can reach many more people and make it possible to upgrade phones without asking people to terminate their contracts.
Seriously - unlocked phones won't float in the US. The carrier gives huge discounts and most of us don't really care about switching services (a lot people just get all their friends on the same network so all calling is free). I don't care how sweet the iPhone is. I'm not gonna pay 300-400 dollars for a phone when I can get one for 20 or less and stay with the carrier I plan to stay with anyway. Also note that I get a pretty nice company discount with the big guys on my plan and most all of my friends/family are with 1 carrier so it'd really be stupid of me to go with a diff carrier...
Thunderbird
Aug 7, 04:41 PM
So the cat won't be out of the bag until Spring 2007?
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January
I wonder if this is a case of Redmond playing chicken with Cuppertino...
Microsoft: "We're late, so show us your O/S first."
Apple: "Sorry, not until December. But feel free to release yours first"
Microsoft: "We've delayed till March, so you go first"
Apple: "Well, we've delayed till Spring too, so you go ahead."
:D
I thought Leopard was slated for December?
Maybe that means it will actually be launched at MWSF in January
I wonder if this is a case of Redmond playing chicken with Cuppertino...
Microsoft: "We're late, so show us your O/S first."
Apple: "Sorry, not until December. But feel free to release yours first"
Microsoft: "We've delayed till March, so you go first"
Apple: "Well, we've delayed till Spring too, so you go ahead."
:D
lsvtecjohn3
Apr 19, 03:07 PM
Well you can see that with the Mac. About 3% worldwide marketshare but Apple makes tons of money with it.
And eveybody crys tears here when some 5 year old Windows games finally get ported to MacOS. You want that to happen with the iPhone and iOS compared to Android? Fine. But I'm sure 99% of iPhone buyers don't want that scenario.
HA I knew you were going to say that. developer prefer to develop for iOS. iOS user spend more money on Apps than Android user. Plus iPod Touch user can use the same apps as the iPhone. There won't be a Windows for the smartphones theres already too many players in the game.
And eveybody crys tears here when some 5 year old Windows games finally get ported to MacOS. You want that to happen with the iPhone and iOS compared to Android? Fine. But I'm sure 99% of iPhone buyers don't want that scenario.
HA I knew you were going to say that. developer prefer to develop for iOS. iOS user spend more money on Apps than Android user. Plus iPod Touch user can use the same apps as the iPhone. There won't be a Windows for the smartphones theres already too many players in the game.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 27, 10:22 AM
Well there's always going to be some die-hard PPC and Core Duo users who will vote negative on this story :p
Well Apple, get those Core 2 Duos in the iMacs and MacBook Pros, and a Woodcrest... No... 2 Woodcrests in the Mac Pros.
Well Apple, get those Core 2 Duos in the iMacs and MacBook Pros, and a Woodcrest... No... 2 Woodcrests in the Mac Pros.
Keebler
Apr 6, 08:36 AM
Let me be clear - FCS needs a robust blu-ray authoring feature. We don't live in a wireless world where you can transmit video free over the air. We still put disks in a player to watch and also preserve our video memories.
Not having a good blu-ray authoring feature is a huge problem for Final Cut Studio. Not only does it impact professional wedding video-graphers, but ordinary people who want to put their video on a disk to send to people. I can't just put my video on netflix to have a friend watch it on his ROKU.
I agree. For myself, I'm about to buy an HD camcorder now that my digital8 tape has stopped working. 2 issues confront me: 1. storage space for which I have an 8 TB raid set up and 2. delivery - ATV or iphone/ipod touch/ipad files and/or blu ray for archiving (being a physical copy).
That's fine for me - but what about my clients? What are the normal joe blows out there doing for HD footage? I transfer home movies for folks so having an easier BR workflow within FCS would be nice.
Not having a good blu-ray authoring feature is a huge problem for Final Cut Studio. Not only does it impact professional wedding video-graphers, but ordinary people who want to put their video on a disk to send to people. I can't just put my video on netflix to have a friend watch it on his ROKU.
I agree. For myself, I'm about to buy an HD camcorder now that my digital8 tape has stopped working. 2 issues confront me: 1. storage space for which I have an 8 TB raid set up and 2. delivery - ATV or iphone/ipod touch/ipad files and/or blu ray for archiving (being a physical copy).
That's fine for me - but what about my clients? What are the normal joe blows out there doing for HD footage? I transfer home movies for folks so having an easier BR workflow within FCS would be nice.
rotarydialz
Apr 27, 08:58 AM
correct. wasn't sure how long it would take for people in general to get up in arms about location privacy on the idevices... what did people think was going to happen??
such it is, our electronic tethers are really leashes.
It's not very accurate information apparently. I would like to know just how accurate this location tracking is before I get too excited.
such it is, our electronic tethers are really leashes.
It's not very accurate information apparently. I would like to know just how accurate this location tracking is before I get too excited.
Benjamins
Mar 31, 06:14 PM
I completely agree, but let's be honest, Apple and Microsoft fans are no different.
true, but the smugness and self righteousness of Google fanboys are so much worse.
true, but the smugness and self righteousness of Google fanboys are so much worse.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 10:41 AM
Well let's just check we are 'on the same page then'..
Ok, lets.
You agree Samsung have copied Apple, but only on things that you think don't really matter, while on the other hand anything where they don't look the same is terribly important..
I agree that the pictures in the media do show some ressemblance, but since I know better, I waited for a full claims analysis. The complaint is broad and to not seperate it in parts and claim a "black or white" answer is quite disingenuous.
In the many claims, the trademark icons remain to be seen by a court how much ressemblance/confusion there is. There is no point in arguing this since all it is at the end of the day is hot air. This one is up to a judge. Are these trademarks even registered ? If they are, what are they registered as and is Samsung's design really infringing on this ?
Not matters we'll settle here anyway.
As for the trade dress, again as I have stated, Apple claims a wide array of devices, yet the media have only posted pictures of the I9000. Other models don't share the ressemblances claimed here and it is baffling why Apple would put down their claims on all models. I question the validity of this one as it applies as broadly as the media paints it. Do I question for the I9000 ? Depends on the angle. In person, the phones are quite hard to confuse.
Courts will tell again.
Okay, got it!
At least wait for me to validate your "on the same page" before you get it. That is what good faith discussion is about. ;)
Ok, lets.
You agree Samsung have copied Apple, but only on things that you think don't really matter, while on the other hand anything where they don't look the same is terribly important..
I agree that the pictures in the media do show some ressemblance, but since I know better, I waited for a full claims analysis. The complaint is broad and to not seperate it in parts and claim a "black or white" answer is quite disingenuous.
In the many claims, the trademark icons remain to be seen by a court how much ressemblance/confusion there is. There is no point in arguing this since all it is at the end of the day is hot air. This one is up to a judge. Are these trademarks even registered ? If they are, what are they registered as and is Samsung's design really infringing on this ?
Not matters we'll settle here anyway.
As for the trade dress, again as I have stated, Apple claims a wide array of devices, yet the media have only posted pictures of the I9000. Other models don't share the ressemblances claimed here and it is baffling why Apple would put down their claims on all models. I question the validity of this one as it applies as broadly as the media paints it. Do I question for the I9000 ? Depends on the angle. In person, the phones are quite hard to confuse.
Courts will tell again.
Okay, got it!
At least wait for me to validate your "on the same page" before you get it. That is what good faith discussion is about. ;)
DaveN
Apr 6, 08:07 PM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Let's add a third model
15" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
That would give extra battery room, running time, and room for an extra port.
I'd go for that as I could use a little more screen area.
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Let's add a third model
15" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
That would give extra battery room, running time, and room for an extra port.
I'd go for that as I could use a little more screen area.
safe4mx
Apr 7, 11:57 PM
Well that's pretty childish of both parties. :rolleyes:
brepublican
Nov 28, 10:29 PM
This is ridiculous. The record companies are obsessed with money. They didnt seek royalties on CD players but iPods are somehow different. They are MUSIC PLAYERS. They record industry should have no part in music hardware, its just ridiculous.:mad:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand why they would want money for every iPod sold. Is this how Microsoft plans to "kill" the iPod with their Zune? By distorting the mp3 market with such kind of BS :mad:
Idiots
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand why they would want money for every iPod sold. Is this how Microsoft plans to "kill" the iPod with their Zune? By distorting the mp3 market with such kind of BS :mad:
Idiots
deconai
Aug 11, 03:37 PM
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
Are you saying 99% of Europeans use cell phones or that 99% of Europe is cell-ready? If the former, then there must be a ton of kids yapping it up on the wireless. ;)
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
Are you saying 99% of Europeans use cell phones or that 99% of Europe is cell-ready? If the former, then there must be a ton of kids yapping it up on the wireless. ;)
2IS
Apr 7, 12:26 AM
I'm getting tired of Apple Mac's being INTEL's BIATCH!
Integrated graphics on a laptop costing THAT MUCH? PLEASE!
Steve Jobs should threaten to switch to AMD/ATI solutions even if just for leverage with Intel to get discreet graphics chips in these machines.
If this is true, this is a pathetic technology compromise in my opinion.
lol... You really think Intel is the reason Apple laptops cost what they do? Really?
Integrated graphics on a laptop costing THAT MUCH? PLEASE!
Steve Jobs should threaten to switch to AMD/ATI solutions even if just for leverage with Intel to get discreet graphics chips in these machines.
If this is true, this is a pathetic technology compromise in my opinion.
lol... You really think Intel is the reason Apple laptops cost what they do? Really?
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
aafuss1
Aug 5, 10:56 PM
To me the answer to the whole IR/Mac Pro/Front Row thing is obvious - put an integrated IR receiver into the keyboard. The keyboard would come with the Mac Pro (unlike the display) and is rarely under the desk. :)
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
A redesigned keyboard-should come in Mac Pro and white colors
Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).
A redesigned keyboard-should come in Mac Pro and white colors
technicolor
Sep 19, 10:05 PM
Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.
Yeah and they werent in Macs, so I didnt care.
DavidLeblond
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
Hastings101
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I don't care if Google does it, that doesn't give Apple free reign to do it as well. Both Google and Apple need to be looked at a bit more closely.
Also, it's free publicity for Apple, especially if this becomes a big case :p
Also, it's free publicity for Apple, especially if this becomes a big case :p
HyperZboy
Apr 7, 11:36 PM
This notion that Best Buy is the only one hoarding stock is typical of the stereotypical Apple fan. And once again, I've never bought Apple or Mac products at Best Buy because the staff are not knowledgeable in most cases, the same way I never bought a Mac at Circuit City for the short period they carried Macs.
But which stores are well stocked the best with iPads?
See if you can guess. I'll give you a hint, it begins with an A.
Sure you can say, those are Apple's rules, deal with it, but that doesn't make it right.
The truth probably is that some Best Buys are probably near Walmarts and Targets so they don't want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks while Apple hoards stock at its stores. I'm sure none of them want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks and suspect that Best Buy is the not the only offender of conserving stock due to Apple's inability to meet demand.
Not one of these chains wants to be known as the chain that didn't have iPads for 2-3 weeks giving consumers the impression they don't carry it anymore!
The only difference is Best Buy got CAUGHT!
I would bet that this directive came from corporate and applied to a limited number of stores that were faced with the possibility of being out of stock for an extended period of time.
People can conjecture here all they want, but no one really knows the details of Apple's supply promises vs. what it delivered with any of these chains.
But which stores are well stocked the best with iPads?
See if you can guess. I'll give you a hint, it begins with an A.
Sure you can say, those are Apple's rules, deal with it, but that doesn't make it right.
The truth probably is that some Best Buys are probably near Walmarts and Targets so they don't want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks while Apple hoards stock at its stores. I'm sure none of them want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks and suspect that Best Buy is the not the only offender of conserving stock due to Apple's inability to meet demand.
Not one of these chains wants to be known as the chain that didn't have iPads for 2-3 weeks giving consumers the impression they don't carry it anymore!
The only difference is Best Buy got CAUGHT!
I would bet that this directive came from corporate and applied to a limited number of stores that were faced with the possibility of being out of stock for an extended period of time.
People can conjecture here all they want, but no one really knows the details of Apple's supply promises vs. what it delivered with any of these chains.
iLilana
Apr 8, 01:19 AM
bestbuy (and futureshop..same company) insist apple purchasers buy their own over priced ****** extended warranty on apple products. I'm not sure its allowed by apple or not but it seems a bit shady. I hate shopping in those places.
ddekker
Oct 22, 01:21 PM
I heard Leo Laporte talking about this on his KFI podcast... exciting... one question... how many softwares take advantage of multi cores? I understand that the OS can deal with it for multi tasking, but how many programs multi thread?
DD
DD
AppleJustWorks
Aug 26, 09:56 AM
California, it's replies like this that pisses switchers off, even seasones mac users get upset with these replies. What the hell is Rev A?. What idiot argument is this?. That's it ok for apple to make a ****ed-up product cause it's the first version?. What?.. apple just started making computers that they don't know how to make quality products until they already made the first version?. Apple should be horrified at your suggestion. Imagine if no one bought Rev A (whatever the **** that means) machines from Apple. APPLE WOULD GO BROKE!!. There's always Rev A machines when it comes to computers dude. The next mac pro upgrade will use a new processor, faster, new video, more ram, newer harddrive and becomes rev A cause THEY ARE THE FIRST APPLE PRODUCTS TO USE THE NEW UPGRADED PROCESSOR, NEW HARDDIVE, ETC. Really, stop with this nonsense. You are like the 10th idiotic apple fan I have read using this dumb argument.
Right on. I made the same argument to someone on a different forum, and it's just amazing how fanboy mac users concoct these elaborate theories of why apple screwing up is acceptable.
The point is, by simple logic, yes, the following revisions of a product tend to be more reliable because they've had time to address issues, but no, that doesn't mean (anyone) shouldn't buy a machine purely because of it's revision number. If that was the case, then Apple would be out of business. Period.
Right on. I made the same argument to someone on a different forum, and it's just amazing how fanboy mac users concoct these elaborate theories of why apple screwing up is acceptable.
The point is, by simple logic, yes, the following revisions of a product tend to be more reliable because they've had time to address issues, but no, that doesn't mean (anyone) shouldn't buy a machine purely because of it's revision number. If that was the case, then Apple would be out of business. Period.
notabadname
Apr 5, 05:08 PM
This is so needed. Hope it is a dramatic improvement.
0 comments:
Post a Comment