LondonCentral
Apr 11, 12:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I dont want to wait :(
Tell me about it. I've just sold my iPhone 4. More fool me for expecting a Summer release.
Think I'll get a decent camera and update my Macbook for a MBA while I wait.
I dont want to wait :(
Tell me about it. I've just sold my iPhone 4. More fool me for expecting a Summer release.
Think I'll get a decent camera and update my Macbook for a MBA while I wait.
Rt&Dzine
Feb 28, 12:58 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. 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.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. 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. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
Obviously most people, including Catholics, aren't able to adhere to this ideal. So are they not allowed to be married? Obviously not. And I know Catholics who have divorced and remarried. That's equally abhorrent. Yet they're allowed to do this.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. 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. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
Obviously most people, including Catholics, aren't able to adhere to this ideal. So are they not allowed to be married? Obviously not. And I know Catholics who have divorced and remarried. That's equally abhorrent. Yet they're allowed to do this.
balamw
Apr 6, 04:22 PM
He's still using that 2,000,000 Tabs "shipped", adding it to iPads sold in the same period, and finding the Tab's number is 30% of the total. Very..."smooth", could I say?
These would be the very same Tabs I see pallets of at Costco, while everyone else is sold out of iPad 2s. Got it.
B
These would be the very same Tabs I see pallets of at Costco, while everyone else is sold out of iPad 2s. Got it.
B
JFreak
Aug 19, 03:11 AM
this kinds of benchmarks show clearly that the world is not yet ready for Universally Better appplications. Quad G5 still rocks as a production system, but it would surely be nice to give those new Mac Pro's a test drive; however, it would be rather lame, as not nearly all audio plugins have been converted. For myself -- for that very reason -- the Intel-era begins in 2008 at the earliest. I want zero crashes when I mix.
heyjp
Nov 28, 11:06 PM
I think having Apple (which of course gets passed on to us users) paying a royalty per iPod is a no-brainer, let's do it!!! The logic is that people are playing illegal copies of Universal Studios songs, therefore, Apple should pay a royalty for every iPod to cover.
So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.
HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.
jp
So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.
HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.
jp
11thIndian
Apr 6, 08:05 AM
Yikes! Better offload my copy of the current version of FCS before it drops too low.
Any takers? :D
If you're planning on buying the new FCS at an "Upgrade" price, you can't sell your old version. You still need the serial # for installations.
Any takers? :D
If you're planning on buying the new FCS at an "Upgrade" price, you can't sell your old version. You still need the serial # for installations.
McGarvels
Nov 28, 06:46 PM
I can't wait until Steve laughs in their faces. Who the hell do these guys think they are?
Yamcha
Apr 19, 02:41 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
shamino
Jul 20, 05:41 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Historically, Apple has always sold a dual-processor model of the Pro systems. When dual-core PPCs became available, they shipped a G5 system with two of these.
In the absence of any other information, it seems pretty darn obvious that the high-end Mac Pro will have two processors, regardless of how many cores are in it. Which means it will have to be something from the Xeon line.
Apple doesn't need to cripple the Mac Pro in order to promote the Xserve. The two products are designed for completely different applications and are not interchangeable for any serious applications. Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Historically, Apple has always sold a dual-processor model of the Pro systems. When dual-core PPCs became available, they shipped a G5 system with two of these.
In the absence of any other information, it seems pretty darn obvious that the high-end Mac Pro will have two processors, regardless of how many cores are in it. Which means it will have to be something from the Xeon line.
Apple doesn't need to cripple the Mac Pro in order to promote the Xserve. The two products are designed for completely different applications and are not interchangeable for any serious applications. Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.
notabadname
Mar 22, 04:06 PM
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
1st point: It's factually inaccurate to make your first statement, as evidenced by your last statement. Kind of funny, don't you think?
In your second statement, you are comparing all Android software-running phones to a single model/product line, the iPhone. The iPhone (each generation) has out sold any single phone model (generation) over it's life than that of any offered by any other hardware manufacturer.
Your comparison is like saying Toyota has sold more cars than Ford has sold F-150s. That may be true, but the F-150 is still the number one selling truck in the US, even though it does not outsell the sum total of all other trucks by all other manufacturers.
You should compare a single phone model, say Motorola Droid or HTC Incredible. You are simply talking software. Apple is primarily a hardware company that happens to make the software for its hardware. (yes, I know about FCP and other software) They do not license the iOS software to other manufacturers, so comparison to Google's OS and number of DIFFERENT phones it runs on is really irrelevant to whether any hardware manufacturer has had a more successful phone than the iPhone.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
1st point: It's factually inaccurate to make your first statement, as evidenced by your last statement. Kind of funny, don't you think?
In your second statement, you are comparing all Android software-running phones to a single model/product line, the iPhone. The iPhone (each generation) has out sold any single phone model (generation) over it's life than that of any offered by any other hardware manufacturer.
Your comparison is like saying Toyota has sold more cars than Ford has sold F-150s. That may be true, but the F-150 is still the number one selling truck in the US, even though it does not outsell the sum total of all other trucks by all other manufacturers.
You should compare a single phone model, say Motorola Droid or HTC Incredible. You are simply talking software. Apple is primarily a hardware company that happens to make the software for its hardware. (yes, I know about FCP and other software) They do not license the iOS software to other manufacturers, so comparison to Google's OS and number of DIFFERENT phones it runs on is really irrelevant to whether any hardware manufacturer has had a more successful phone than the iPhone.
tjanuranus
Mar 27, 03:40 AM
If you want to buy one here you go. No need to wait for Trim support
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce
azentropy
Apr 5, 04:46 PM
Hopefully there will be new iMacs to go with it. Refresh please!
and Mac Pros!
and entry level MacBook!
and Mac minis!
and ...
and Mac Pros!
and entry level MacBook!
and Mac minis!
and ...
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 11:40 AM
BTW...
Quick question...
How does Radio Shack know what your upgrade
price will be?
I mean, I know already I am not eligible for a
discount and will have to pay $399 or $499.
Does Radio Shack have access to your AT&T
account to determine your upgrade price?
Quick question...
How does Radio Shack know what your upgrade
price will be?
I mean, I know already I am not eligible for a
discount and will have to pay $399 or $499.
Does Radio Shack have access to your AT&T
account to determine your upgrade price?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 05:00 AM
What I do is none of your damn business. And your opinion has no bearing on my life. Why you feel the need to tell others what to do is beyond me. Take care of your own house, let me take care of mine.
I don't want to know what Lee does. I've said what I believe. I haven't told anyone to do anything.
I don't want to know what Lee does. I've said what I believe. I haven't told anyone to do anything.
aswitcher
Aug 11, 02:49 PM
You guys are looking about a $500.00 phone...atleast.
Perhaps. But thats about right for a Nokia N series with most of the features we have been mentioning.
Perhaps. But thats about right for a Nokia N series with most of the features we have been mentioning.
Benjamins
Mar 31, 02:53 PM
What the heck are you talking about. Google is building upon the technology. Apple did a great job advancing the technology which pushed everyone else to do the same. Its called competition its been happening for years and in every industry.
so what Apple FAD are you talking about?
It's technology when it's Google.
It's a FAD when it's Apple?
What the **** are you talking about?
so what Apple FAD are you talking about?
It's technology when it's Google.
It's a FAD when it's Apple?
What the **** are you talking about?
supafly1703
Jul 27, 09:43 AM
C'mon Steve, wow us...
gnasher729
Mar 26, 07:05 PM
so, it's beta #1? Feature complete but still has bugs to iron out.
Golden master is usually when they are confident of no bugs isn't it?
Golden master is the one that gets shipped.
"Golden master candidate" is one with no known bugs that need fixing, but there are plenty of people still testing, so you expect new bugs to come up that need fixing. You fix them and have a new "Golden master candidate". With the first "Golden master candidate" you are usually quite sure that there will be bugs found.
And you _know_ there are bugs in the Golden Master, you just reached the point where you aren't finding any more bugs. Some customers tend to be quite good at finding them :mad: which is why you have 10.6.1, 10.6.2 and so on.
Golden master is usually when they are confident of no bugs isn't it?
Golden master is the one that gets shipped.
"Golden master candidate" is one with no known bugs that need fixing, but there are plenty of people still testing, so you expect new bugs to come up that need fixing. You fix them and have a new "Golden master candidate". With the first "Golden master candidate" you are usually quite sure that there will be bugs found.
And you _know_ there are bugs in the Golden Master, you just reached the point where you aren't finding any more bugs. Some customers tend to be quite good at finding them :mad: which is why you have 10.6.1, 10.6.2 and so on.
cult hero
Mar 26, 12:32 AM
Can't believe it's anywhere near GM time. Way too many bugs and inconsistencies in behavior. New networking tools in Server have to be implemented now that SMB is being canned - that's not a minor addition. Calling it a release candidate is a stretch, but calling it GM is just plain crazy.
The GPL3 issue with Samba has been around for a LONG time. The announcement was made in 2007. I have some feeling that Apple's been brewing their Samba replacement for a long time. (Although I don't think this is a GM either.)
About the only thing that I find disappointing about this release is the lack of a new filesystem. However, that might just be because coming from a Linux background I probably payed WAY more attention to filesystems than most people.
The GPL3 issue with Samba has been around for a LONG time. The announcement was made in 2007. I have some feeling that Apple's been brewing their Samba replacement for a long time. (Although I don't think this is a GM either.)
About the only thing that I find disappointing about this release is the lack of a new filesystem. However, that might just be because coming from a Linux background I probably payed WAY more attention to filesystems than most people.
daneoni
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
To be honest i dont really care anymore. As it is, im leaning away from Apple portables and moving to their desktops. Maybe just maybe if the 15" MBP sports a 16x DL superdrive, Magnetic latch Firewire 800 and maybe an extra USB port i may consider. But to be honest the MacPro is looking like a better candidate for me. My PB is fine my mobile computing needs, its time for a powerful workhorse thats more stable and reliable, namely, the MacPro
charlituna
Apr 5, 10:34 PM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.
Guess you want us to believe you are one of the folks blessed with an advance look
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
It's called 3rd party software and an external burner. Us big boys do it that way all the time.
Guess you want us to believe you are one of the folks blessed with an advance look
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
It's called 3rd party software and an external burner. Us big boys do it that way all the time.
michaelrjohnson
Jul 27, 10:03 AM
Rule 1 of Apple Events:
You never get all the marbles.
Very very wise, Chundles. You are correct.
(In other words, they're always disappointing on some level to someone.) :)
You never get all the marbles.
Very very wise, Chundles. You are correct.
(In other words, they're always disappointing on some level to someone.) :)
hadleydb
Aug 17, 01:15 PM
I need one... or is it more of a want? Need.:eek:
Amazing Iceman
Mar 23, 08:28 AM
And every new version of itunes requires a bigger and faster computer to run, your point? Hardware moves on , every companys takes advantage of that.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
That's why recently Microsoft made a big deal about some of their new software being either rewritten or optimized, when the case is that it was already expected from them to deploy optimized software.
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
I have seen Office for Windows run on several computers, as I provide IT support. I know how it works, not just because I see it, but because the users complain about it. Surely, it may run decent on a system with a large size of RAM, but if they didn't have that much RAM and the previous version ran fine with what they had, and now the new one runs slow while adding not enough functionality, then that's being a sloppy programmer.
I don't want to start a discussion about Office I don't really have a problem about it, plus it gets off topic.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
That's why recently Microsoft made a big deal about some of their new software being either rewritten or optimized, when the case is that it was already expected from them to deploy optimized software.
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
I have seen Office for Windows run on several computers, as I provide IT support. I know how it works, not just because I see it, but because the users complain about it. Surely, it may run decent on a system with a large size of RAM, but if they didn't have that much RAM and the previous version ran fine with what they had, and now the new one runs slow while adding not enough functionality, then that's being a sloppy programmer.
I don't want to start a discussion about Office I don't really have a problem about it, plus it gets off topic.
