basesloaded190
Apr 6, 11:03 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
You obviously don't know how powerful SB actually is compared to C2D
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
You obviously don't know how powerful SB actually is compared to C2D
GekkePrutser
Apr 6, 12:36 PM
I completely disagree with that statement.
Well at least the iPad does have a backlit keyboard :p
Edit: But I agree, I own an iPad myself and while it serves its purpose brilliantly there's many things that can just not be done on it. Just wanted to say there's a few things it does have over the MacBook Air (the built-in 3G option is another)
Well at least the iPad does have a backlit keyboard :p
Edit: But I agree, I own an iPad myself and while it serves its purpose brilliantly there's many things that can just not be done on it. Just wanted to say there's a few things it does have over the MacBook Air (the built-in 3G option is another)
SiliconAddict
Aug 6, 03:06 AM
I'm hoping for a major bombshell of an announcement when it comes to Leopard. I've said it before and I will say it again - the gap between Windows and OS X will narrow with Vista. Yes we are all aware that Vista in all likelihood is going to be just as buggy as 10.0 when it was released. But keep in mind that this will probably be the last version of OS X to be released for the next 18+ months. (When its all said and done its prob going to be close to 2 years with 10.4->10.5) That time frame is more then enough time for MS to release SP1 and SP2 which WILL happen once its released, the general public (a.k.a Beta testers.) get their hands on it, and MS starts getting those crash reports.
Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.
We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.
PS- Please Apple; FTFF.
Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.
We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.
PS- Please Apple; FTFF.
Popeye206
Apr 11, 11:30 AM
They should stick to the June update each year. I know it may not be their fault but Apple need to keep the iPhone up to date, otherwise they will lose ground. Mobile phones are very competitive.
Apple has never been one to react to competition in the recent years. They seem to do what they think is best and let others follow them.
I think they know that if they bring out the best one when it is released, they will sell as many as they can make for a long time.
Apple has never been one to react to competition in the recent years. They seem to do what they think is best and let others follow them.
I think they know that if they bring out the best one when it is released, they will sell as many as they can make for a long time.
bretm
Aug 16, 11:59 PM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate.
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate.
BlondeBuddhist
Jun 10, 12:37 PM
When I talked to the rep at The Shack 2 days ago he told me to keep checking back for what time they'll be open on launch day. He said there is a good chance I'll know when I pre-orer the 15th.
As far as how many non pre-order phones they plan to have, he told me they will likely have as many stock phones as they get pre-ordered. Doesn't apply to those pre-ordering as much as those hitting up RS for shorter lines that didn't pre-order.
I wonder if they will allow me to pay in full on the 15th as oppose to the $50 down payment. Either way I hope this helps Radio Shack out. I have been treated 100X better by the staff there compared to Best Buy OR AT&T. Plus they're prices seem better. When I was there asking about the pre-orders I purchased a car charger/cord to plug my ipod in to the glove box that runs thru the deck for only $37 with tax.
Blonde Buddhist
As far as how many non pre-order phones they plan to have, he told me they will likely have as many stock phones as they get pre-ordered. Doesn't apply to those pre-ordering as much as those hitting up RS for shorter lines that didn't pre-order.
I wonder if they will allow me to pay in full on the 15th as oppose to the $50 down payment. Either way I hope this helps Radio Shack out. I have been treated 100X better by the staff there compared to Best Buy OR AT&T. Plus they're prices seem better. When I was there asking about the pre-orders I purchased a car charger/cord to plug my ipod in to the glove box that runs thru the deck for only $37 with tax.
Blonde Buddhist
DTphonehome
Nov 28, 06:49 PM
Hahahahahahahahahaha(breathe)hahahahahahahahaha!
As if Apple would ever agree to this! Back when the iTMS was in its infancy, I could see Universal making a demand like this. But now, what leverage do they have? "If you don't pay, we're going to pull all Universal songs off the iTMS!" Um, ok, great, lose one of the only profitable revenue streams the music industry has these days? Right.
As if Apple would ever agree to this! Back when the iTMS was in its infancy, I could see Universal making a demand like this. But now, what leverage do they have? "If you don't pay, we're going to pull all Universal songs off the iTMS!" Um, ok, great, lose one of the only profitable revenue streams the music industry has these days? Right.
Shagrat
Jul 21, 12:28 AM
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?
5.
:(
5.
:(
WildCowboy
Aug 16, 11:32 PM
Bravo.
I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.
Rolling On Floor Laughing
I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.
Rolling On Floor Laughing
leekohler
Apr 27, 09:43 AM
Did he release a different form of the document today?
I really couldn't give a ratass if he ever released it.
But to say it could not be released? Cmon this is CIA/Secret Service information gathering 101.
Some of the crap that was dug up in for back ground investigations makes getting a birth certificate look easy.
OMG- you're one of them. :eek: Please go get a hobby.
I really couldn't give a ratass if he ever released it.
But to say it could not be released? Cmon this is CIA/Secret Service information gathering 101.
Some of the crap that was dug up in for back ground investigations makes getting a birth certificate look easy.
OMG- you're one of them. :eek: Please go get a hobby.
ergle2
Sep 14, 08:42 PM
I think you're a bit arse-about-face there. Someone else has already pointed out the differences between XP and Windows 2003 aren't trivial, so I won't go into that. However, if you're sufficient vintage, you should remember the "outrage" when someone demonstrated that you could turn NT 4 Workstation into NT 4 Server (including the boot and login screens) just by changing a few Registry settings (although the part that usually doesn't get said is that those Registry settings then triggered a whole range of different tuning settings for the scheduler, memory management, etc). NT 3.5 & 3.51 were the same, and IIRC, NT 3.1 didn't even have a "Server" version.
The comments about separate platforms in the NT era I took to refer to NT3.x/4 vs Win9x.
Quite a few bits of XP Pro functionality can be enabled in XP home with some minor hex editing, too.
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
The comments about separate platforms in the NT era I took to refer to NT3.x/4 vs Win9x.
Quite a few bits of XP Pro functionality can be enabled in XP home with some minor hex editing, too.
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:27 PM
I'm with you on that. I'm pretty sure Front Row is gone for good. Instead, look for iTunes full screen mode. Alternatively, I could see Lion gaining the ability to run iOS apps in some fashion, with the AppleTV interface being one option.
I hope it's not killed. It's a neglected feature with so much potential, and it would be nice to see Apple do something with it. I was hoping they'd port the Apple TV interface into it. Plex and the other similar things just aren't quite right and lack the simplicity of front row. And iTunes is already a bloated slow piece of crap that needs a full re-write and a healthy diet. I get that it's the gateway app for Apple into Windows for their echo system, but the Windows version is worse than the Mac version. There has to be a way to clean it's gutters, but don't put anything more in there.
I hope it's not killed. It's a neglected feature with so much potential, and it would be nice to see Apple do something with it. I was hoping they'd port the Apple TV interface into it. Plex and the other similar things just aren't quite right and lack the simplicity of front row. And iTunes is already a bloated slow piece of crap that needs a full re-write and a healthy diet. I get that it's the gateway app for Apple into Windows for their echo system, but the Windows version is worse than the Mac version. There has to be a way to clean it's gutters, but don't put anything more in there.
littleman23408
Dec 2, 03:03 PM
They kind of cant do more detailed damage to standard cars. Premium cars are modeled exactly right their real counterpart. Each body part is completely separate from the rest and can be torn off in a collision. Standard cars are one big mesh that can be dented, but not broken apart. In order to give the same level of damage to a standard car they'd have to update it to a premium model.
I've heard/read chatter that some patches will update some standard cars to premium, but i dont think i've seen anything official yet. Kaz is way too ambitious and had to cut a lot out of the game already. I expect he'll add it in as time goes on, as patches and not paid DLC.
Ah! I didn't realize that. Good to know!
I've heard/read chatter that some patches will update some standard cars to premium, but i dont think i've seen anything official yet. Kaz is way too ambitious and had to cut a lot out of the game already. I expect he'll add it in as time goes on, as patches and not paid DLC.
Ah! I didn't realize that. Good to know!
cmaier
Apr 19, 02:35 PM
Yes. People here are failing to understand the difference between traditional patents that we usually hear about here, and design patents. I believe what Apple is suing over is infringed design patents.
7 utility patents and 3 design patents, plus 3 trade dress registrations and a bunch (7? i forget) trademark registrations, plus some unregistered state-law unfair competition/trademark stuff.
7 utility patents and 3 design patents, plus 3 trade dress registrations and a bunch (7? i forget) trademark registrations, plus some unregistered state-law unfair competition/trademark stuff.
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.
GenesisST
Mar 31, 04:00 PM
Can't we just all get along?:-)
The pissing contest continues taking on comical character.
As an iphone user I have a great device that does what I want it to do. The least of that is actually making phone calls.
It's beautifully integrated with all my Apple stuff.
The Android users have their iphone and ios copy phones. (Hello Mr. Schmidt, nice stealing)
If the Androids and Windoof phones do what their consumers need them to do be happy.
Why would I even care if open or closed. I have no personal advantages if Mr. Rubin has to eat his words or they make changes. Technology is ever evolving.
As a famous politician once said: What do I care about what I said yesterday?
May the better product win, copy and all. If the iphone starts to suck and there are better alternatives for me, I'll switch and so will plenty of others.
Same the other way around.
Objectivity, here? It's like thinking in church... BLASPHEMY!
The pissing contest continues taking on comical character.
As an iphone user I have a great device that does what I want it to do. The least of that is actually making phone calls.
It's beautifully integrated with all my Apple stuff.
The Android users have their iphone and ios copy phones. (Hello Mr. Schmidt, nice stealing)
If the Androids and Windoof phones do what their consumers need them to do be happy.
Why would I even care if open or closed. I have no personal advantages if Mr. Rubin has to eat his words or they make changes. Technology is ever evolving.
As a famous politician once said: What do I care about what I said yesterday?
May the better product win, copy and all. If the iphone starts to suck and there are better alternatives for me, I'll switch and so will plenty of others.
Same the other way around.
Objectivity, here? It's like thinking in church... BLASPHEMY!
jne381
Aug 7, 05:27 PM
I think the improvements to OSX are all well and good, I do think Time Machine will be valued in my home, but it is hard to get excited because 10.4 still seems so new to me. I'm sure I don't even know a lot of the cool things it does.
I was hoping for more in the way of hardware. The MacPro seem fine, even though no new case. WHat is he deal with no new displays, but they did drop the prices a little. I think the iPod is long overdue at this point for a makeover. I guess I'm just a victim of my own unfulfilled expectations.
I was hoping for more in the way of hardware. The MacPro seem fine, even though no new case. WHat is he deal with no new displays, but they did drop the prices a little. I think the iPod is long overdue at this point for a makeover. I guess I'm just a victim of my own unfulfilled expectations.
2IS
Apr 8, 09:59 PM
Most people use their MBA for browsing, youtube videos, email, office apps and perhaps video conferencing. None of which will be bottlenecked by the Intel IGP. If you're doing something above and beyond this that will be negatively affected by the IGP, you are in fact, the minority.
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:31 PM
And I remember that they were very concerned about the lack of ECC memory, and were extremely eager to replace them with Xserves as soon as the G5 model came out.
Yeah, the original PowerMac G5 cluster thingy was really just a proof of concept that a high-powered supercomputer could be made from Macs and using the Mac OS. It never ran anything mission critical because of the lack of ECC RAM which could cause all sorts of trouble with calculations if there was even one bit flip.
Once the XServe came out with ECC support they swapped out the PowerMacs (I think MacMall had a big sale of the PMs from the Virginia system) and replaced them with 2.3GHz XServes made specially for them by Apple - at the time I think the XServes were only 2GHz so Apple made a bunch of 2.3GHz systems for Virginia to counteract the effect of the time they lost replacing the PowerMacs.
Yeah, the original PowerMac G5 cluster thingy was really just a proof of concept that a high-powered supercomputer could be made from Macs and using the Mac OS. It never ran anything mission critical because of the lack of ECC RAM which could cause all sorts of trouble with calculations if there was even one bit flip.
Once the XServe came out with ECC support they swapped out the PowerMacs (I think MacMall had a big sale of the PMs from the Virginia system) and replaced them with 2.3GHz XServes made specially for them by Apple - at the time I think the XServes were only 2GHz so Apple made a bunch of 2.3GHz systems for Virginia to counteract the effect of the time they lost replacing the PowerMacs.
Belly-laughs
Nov 28, 08:12 PM
I give Universal $1 to compensate for downloading their whole library illegally? Now, that�s a good deal!
srxtr
Apr 11, 01:19 PM
You guys know the average Joe don't go shopping for a new smart phone every other month?
This is a big deal to some of you guys only because you obsess over this topic almost daily.
This is a big deal to some of you guys only because you obsess over this topic almost daily.
Denarius
Mar 22, 07:36 PM
Don't tell me a flagship armed with 100 Tomahawk missiles and full targeting information just happened to be passing.
I think if military action of this scale is even a possibility, whether you've made a decision, it's pretty normal to put the necessary pieces on standby. I believe keeping strategic targeting information regularly up to date is pretty normal military practise even when you're not at war.
I think if military action of this scale is even a possibility, whether you've made a decision, it's pretty normal to put the necessary pieces on standby. I believe keeping strategic targeting information regularly up to date is pretty normal military practise even when you're not at war.
eb6
Sep 19, 09:50 AM
Can't we stop all this Mac on Mac hate and just get along?:)
maclaptop
Apr 11, 05:42 PM
Do you really think they care? Even if they make a phone that doesn't make calls people will think it's the greatest innovation in the history of mankind.
This is so true it's sickening.
The number one function I'd like to see in the upcoming model is a phone that works as well as every other smartphone I own. Then I'd be able to rely on it, and promote it to my primary phone. Id like nothing better.
This is so true it's sickening.
The number one function I'd like to see in the upcoming model is a phone that works as well as every other smartphone I own. Then I'd be able to rely on it, and promote it to my primary phone. Id like nothing better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment