network23
Jul 11, 02:25 PM
This is scary. While I have no doubts Apple's ability to "get it" will make Microsoft's offering pale by comparison, Microsoft might be able to more than make up for it through marketing and their dominant position in the computer and home gaming market. Then, as in the past, their monopolistic practices will slowly edge out Apple.
And I guarantee you that Microsoft will be much more willing to "play ball" with the movie studios to get the best/preferred deals in offering downloadable movies.
And I guarantee you that Microsoft will be much more willing to "play ball" with the movie studios to get the best/preferred deals in offering downloadable movies.
Benjy91
Apr 29, 02:47 PM
Oooh things are heating up :D
I'm not gonna buy music from Amazon again though, I downloaded 1 song for my Dad once from there. Because iTunes didn't have it, and Amazon emailed me for weeks with spam.
I'm not gonna buy music from Amazon again though, I downloaded 1 song for my Dad once from there. Because iTunes didn't have it, and Amazon emailed me for weeks with spam.
mccldwll
Apr 28, 10:23 AM
the iPhone doesn't compete against Android. The iPhone competes against all of the handsets running Android. And it's killing them. The 3GS as the second best-selling handset? That's frankly embarrassing for Android.
So tell me, in what world is having:
1 - the most popular handset
2 - the 2nd most popular handset
3 - the most popular mobile OS
4 - the most popular tablet
getting "badly beaten"?
Only in that parallel universe occupied by Full of, and others of its ilk.
So tell me, in what world is having:
1 - the most popular handset
2 - the 2nd most popular handset
3 - the most popular mobile OS
4 - the most popular tablet
getting "badly beaten"?
Only in that parallel universe occupied by Full of, and others of its ilk.
Mystikal
Mar 16, 03:11 PM
Yes this was at Irvine Spectrum. The Apple guy said to try again tomorrow.
Has anyone heard from Mission Viejo??
Heres my probably wrong theory:
Fashion island got them yesterday.
South Coast got them today.
Spectrum tomorrow? Maybe =\.
Has anyone heard from Mission Viejo??
Heres my probably wrong theory:
Fashion island got them yesterday.
South Coast got them today.
Spectrum tomorrow? Maybe =\.
more...
Legion93
May 1, 11:37 PM
Another completely misrepresented group in western media....
What, so he wasn't important? What about the president?
What, so he wasn't important? What about the president?
br0adband
Nov 7, 04:04 AM
To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant" - and yes, I've had 4 kernel panics since I got this iMac home; that's more than the number of BSODs I've had under XP in 4 years.
Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.
Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.
You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.
On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).
So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.
Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:
I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:
It just works.
Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.
bb
Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.
Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...
Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.
Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.
You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.
On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).
So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.
Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:
I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:
It just works.
Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.
bb
Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.
Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...
more...
Winni
Jun 6, 08:28 AM
Good thing that Apple takes parental controls as seriously as they take porn in their Disney store... Oh, wait. They don't.
Kardashian
Jul 25, 09:03 AM
�250 for the Adjustable Keyboard!!! even a basic was �50!
Your kidding?
PS: Maybe I can get an Edu discount on it, also.
Your kidding?
PS: Maybe I can get an Edu discount on it, also.
more...
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
Ben Logan
Mar 31, 08:22 PM
Heinous. Absolutely hideous.
And I'm a fan of eye candy.
The faux leather is almost as bad as this "Marble" OS X mockup, from back in the day:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3333642840_d905e48e47_o.jpg
And I'm a fan of eye candy.
The faux leather is almost as bad as this "Marble" OS X mockup, from back in the day:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3333642840_d905e48e47_o.jpg
more...
kiwi-in-uk
Jul 12, 05:57 PM
Too bad you don't have a professional app such as the latest MS Word!:eek:
Then you could just open the new brochure wizard.
Hey life-o-fart!
When last did you use MS Word for Mac?
Then you could just open the new brochure wizard.
Hey life-o-fart!
When last did you use MS Word for Mac?
cbronfman
Apr 22, 06:09 PM
Yup, I was one of the haters when the iPhone 4 leaked. I still prefer the physical design of my 3GS. The rounded edged are perfect holding the phone feels like shaking someone's hand. The iPhone 4 doesn't feel as nice to hold, even if it does have nicer aesthetics.
I would kill for a return to the old design, but eliminate the chrome rim on the front and have the back case curl all the way up to the black face. Then made the back from a new material that doesn't crack as easily as the old plastic. Maybe a molded carbon fiber design? That would be sexy as hell. An iPhone 4 style dark grey carbon back casing flush with the now iconic black face, no shiny chrome ********.
+1 so long as it also has the A5 processor and HSPA+. I like this proposed redesign but then I have small hands and I've never liked the rectangular sharp edges of the iP4 or the glass back. I love my iPad2.
I would kill for a return to the old design, but eliminate the chrome rim on the front and have the back case curl all the way up to the black face. Then made the back from a new material that doesn't crack as easily as the old plastic. Maybe a molded carbon fiber design? That would be sexy as hell. An iPhone 4 style dark grey carbon back casing flush with the now iconic black face, no shiny chrome ********.
+1 so long as it also has the A5 processor and HSPA+. I like this proposed redesign but then I have small hands and I've never liked the rectangular sharp edges of the iP4 or the glass back. I love my iPad2.
more...
Brien
Mar 14, 10:58 AM
Called Brea this morning (around 8 AM). They don't know if they are getting any today (I swear, retail employees don't know anything about anything), but there's already a line about 100 people deep. Yeesh.
LarryC
Apr 25, 02:35 PM
bought the 27 inch quad i5 stock version last august just days after refresh. I loved it but due to wacky screen issue (dust or heat flaw) I got the apple store to just swap it out 3 months after I bought it. Second one had no issues and continues to perform flawlessly. I want to get a new macbookpro with thunderbolt but I think I'm going to hold off until Lion is released.
I think that a lot of people are going to be doing the same. It just makes sense. 129.00 is not an insignificant amount of money and if there are any issues with this new machine then maybe they will have the bugs worked out by the time that Lion makes its debut. I am also hoping that Apple has the new version of iWork ready by the same time.
I think that a lot of people are going to be doing the same. It just makes sense. 129.00 is not an insignificant amount of money and if there are any issues with this new machine then maybe they will have the bugs worked out by the time that Lion makes its debut. I am also hoping that Apple has the new version of iWork ready by the same time.
more...
savar
Oct 23, 08:58 AM
Why would they make such a stupid move? I can tell you this much, they have just lost my support as a vendor! How do they expect me to to sell a $300 copy of windows to a home user just so he can use Microsoft's O/S on his Mac? Oh well I'm sure they know what they are doing or do they?!?!?
:confused:
So this is true?? I suppose this isn't any different than Apple saying that you can't run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, is it?
:confused:
So this is true?? I suppose this isn't any different than Apple saying that you can't run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, is it?
dexthageek
Apr 13, 02:44 PM
Every time an analyst speaks, a fairy dies. :(
Keep "Clapping!'
Keep "Clapping!'
more...
.jpg "arnold schwarzenegger workout")
twoodcc
Nov 3, 11:37 AM
too bad not everyone can get the beta
beg_ne
Jul 28, 08:31 AM
I'm curious. Are they really allowed to do this kind of stuff under their Monopoly status? I would think that, "Breaking into a market and losing Billions of dollars to crush your competition and former 'partners' while sustaining your product on your Monopoly money". Might be against some restriction they have. Am I just nuts or is someone asleep at the wheel.
As for their partners I think I'll be lining up for my lawsuit about now. Especially since I'm sure they have to pay to be "PlaysForSure" compliant, and may have shown MS their Software, Hardware and Music Stores in intimate detail to get that compliancy. In one way or another their money and knowledge in part will fund the very thing that MS will try to crush them with.
As for their partners I think I'll be lining up for my lawsuit about now. Especially since I'm sure they have to pay to be "PlaysForSure" compliant, and may have shown MS their Software, Hardware and Music Stores in intimate detail to get that compliancy. In one way or another their money and knowledge in part will fund the very thing that MS will try to crush them with.
backsidetailsli
Dec 1, 07:32 PM
still better than windoze
rnelan7
Oct 21, 12:45 PM
A trip to Mont Tremblant.
My College has a trip there every winter for five days. Luckily I am able to go this year so I am pumped big time.
My College has a trip there every winter for five days. Luckily I am able to go this year so I am pumped big time.
lordonuthin
Oct 20, 09:57 PM
also, you need to have a passkey and completed 10 WUs with your passkey before you'll get a bigadv unit
I got a passkey a couple of weeks ago and have it on all of the machines now. The mp has run through quite a few wu with the passkey by now.
I got a passkey a couple of weeks ago and have it on all of the machines now. The mp has run through quite a few wu with the passkey by now.
SilentLoner
Apr 14, 06:30 PM
Can anyone confirm if the battery life has improved?
logandzwon
May 4, 07:39 AM
The only thing that sucks about this timing change is that my iPhone 4 won't still be under Apple's free 1yr warranty when I re-sell it to buy an iPhone 5.
same here.
same here.
xlii
Dec 29, 12:54 PM
An "average" sustainable long distance pace (12km/h, about 8mph) will burn through about 1000 calories an hour. I suspect she's not running quite that much ;)
I seem to remember people out in the Arctic / Antartic tend to eat ~ 6000 calories a day, since so much is lost due to cold, etc. Maybe she lives in her fridge most of the day? (Which would explain the calorie intake too!) :)
David
Traditionally the Eskimo's ate 6000 calories a day... mostly animal fat. They needed that much to survive a hunter gatherer lifestyle in a very cold climate.
I seem to remember people out in the Arctic / Antartic tend to eat ~ 6000 calories a day, since so much is lost due to cold, etc. Maybe she lives in her fridge most of the day? (Which would explain the calorie intake too!) :)
David
Traditionally the Eskimo's ate 6000 calories a day... mostly animal fat. They needed that much to survive a hunter gatherer lifestyle in a very cold climate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment