briloronmacrumo
Mar 22, 11:52 PM
GeekBench 2 benchmarks http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/ of the new MBPs with Sandy Bridge would indicate otherwise. This review said: "....the fastest MacBook Pro is 80% faster than the fastest previous-generation MacBook Pro.". My guess is a similar situation might be true for the iMac and it will be faster ( otherwise, there's little point to a rev )
PatrickCocoa assesses the current iMac as being more than fast enough ( i.e. "won't be any slower"--or words to that effect ). Clearly, the current iMac exceeds the computing needs of most Mac users.
PatrickCocoa assesses the current iMac as being more than fast enough ( i.e. "won't be any slower"--or words to that effect ). Clearly, the current iMac exceeds the computing needs of most Mac users.
rtharper
Sep 14, 10:39 AM
I just hope they don't stick iSights in all the displays.
I know, it would be nice, but have you ever worked in a government installation before? No photographic devices of any kind. Co-workers at my last job are stuck with PowerBooks because they can't bring a MacBook (Pro) into any area that contains classified material, and many of them have their offices in such locations. If they couldn't buy new Cinema display I'm sure they'd be even more annoyed.
Sucked for some that had to find cell phones without a camera, too.
I know, it would be nice, but have you ever worked in a government installation before? No photographic devices of any kind. Co-workers at my last job are stuck with PowerBooks because they can't bring a MacBook (Pro) into any area that contains classified material, and many of them have their offices in such locations. If they couldn't buy new Cinema display I'm sure they'd be even more annoyed.
Sucked for some that had to find cell phones without a camera, too.
g7by08believeit
Oct 12, 05:23 PM
keep dreaming..... no C2D!
:D Made you Look :p
:D Made you Look :p
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
ksz
Jul 14, 09:16 AM
Bring 'em on, but place them in a mid-tower case.
juicedropsdeuce
Apr 25, 01:29 PM
...and you think most people who buy a MBP won't swap out the drive for a 7200RPM drive or an SSD and max out their memory?
Intelligent...no genius level thinking!
Great. Since Apple puts that crap hard drive in there, instead of simply using the computer someone has to go through all that trouble to get what they paid for (i7 processor)? Are you for real? That sounds great. I'm sure all those random people who buy from the Apple Store also buy the Apple torx screwdriver kit and get to work when they get home. :rolleyes:
Intelligent...no genius level thinking!
Great. Since Apple puts that crap hard drive in there, instead of simply using the computer someone has to go through all that trouble to get what they paid for (i7 processor)? Are you for real? That sounds great. I'm sure all those random people who buy from the Apple Store also buy the Apple torx screwdriver kit and get to work when they get home. :rolleyes:
sisyphus
Sep 10, 09:33 PM
Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 08:22 AM
I rerally hope it is more than Aperture 2.0. The displays were recently updated, so... I am lost
stol
Apr 11, 10:59 AM
Both financially and from a space and energy consumption point of view, an Apple TV or an Airport Express is a more efficient solution for this. Apple tends to support only the efficient and simple solutions, not the cumbersome ones.
Agreed. I never said that this is the most elegant solution.
But� why should I get extra hardware (environmentally unfriendly) when I have my Mac on most of the time anyway. You know, I already have a computer (connected to speakers) so computer + Airport Express is more energy/money/space inefficient than a computer alone.
You know all well that the router is not free, you pay for through your monthly payments. The fact that your provider does not offer a cheaper service without such hardware freebies is just unfortunate.
If I renew my service, I pay the same money and of course I don't get new hardware. Hardware freebies are for new customers/connections in many services other than internet connections. Subscribe to a satellite tv service for example, get a free dish. This is beyond me anyway, it's a standard policy for all providers where I live. I just got this modem/router with my subscription and so far it works fine. No need to replace it.
Would you be happy if Apple included a free Airport Express with all Macs (but naturally increased the price for the Mac)? There is nothing free, at least in the physical world (the digital world can be very close to free, see iOS apps).
This makes no sense. Not everyone needs or desires an Airport Express. I never asked Apple for free hardware.
So, how much do think Apple is asking for licensing their Airplay technology, I'd guess at most between $5-10.
Do they license Airplay technology to software developers? I don't think so.
Show me an app on the Mac App Store (or wherever) that acts like an Airport Express and i'll buy it at once.
Is your Mac (the one connected to your sound system) really cheaper than an Airport Express?
And if this is your only Mac, you can just use the Remote app to play the music on it from your iOS device.
How can you possibly compare a Mac to� an Airport Express? I bought a Mac to have a COMPUTER not to stream music wirelessly.
What you should think about is: How hard is for a Mac to act like an Airport Express with the proper software? It shouldn't.
Why it there no software like this? Apple does not want to.
Fair enough; It's their technology. Sometimes though, people want different things. Glad to see quite a few people here want the same as me.
I have no idea what a Banana-TV is but for all that you want to do, an Airport Express it seems would do the trick. Is an Airport Express much more expensive than your Banana-TV?
Banana TV is software. It is $7.99. It makes your Mac act like an Apple TV - does not support audio only though.
It does something like: I can stream a video i just shot from my iPhone to my huge iMac screen - no AppleTV needed, no need to transfer the video to the iMac, no cables.
Now tell me this is not a better solution for casual use than having an AppleTV in terms of money, space, energy, hardware. You see, I don't even have a TV!
Agreed. I never said that this is the most elegant solution.
But� why should I get extra hardware (environmentally unfriendly) when I have my Mac on most of the time anyway. You know, I already have a computer (connected to speakers) so computer + Airport Express is more energy/money/space inefficient than a computer alone.
You know all well that the router is not free, you pay for through your monthly payments. The fact that your provider does not offer a cheaper service without such hardware freebies is just unfortunate.
If I renew my service, I pay the same money and of course I don't get new hardware. Hardware freebies are for new customers/connections in many services other than internet connections. Subscribe to a satellite tv service for example, get a free dish. This is beyond me anyway, it's a standard policy for all providers where I live. I just got this modem/router with my subscription and so far it works fine. No need to replace it.
Would you be happy if Apple included a free Airport Express with all Macs (but naturally increased the price for the Mac)? There is nothing free, at least in the physical world (the digital world can be very close to free, see iOS apps).
This makes no sense. Not everyone needs or desires an Airport Express. I never asked Apple for free hardware.
So, how much do think Apple is asking for licensing their Airplay technology, I'd guess at most between $5-10.
Do they license Airplay technology to software developers? I don't think so.
Show me an app on the Mac App Store (or wherever) that acts like an Airport Express and i'll buy it at once.
Is your Mac (the one connected to your sound system) really cheaper than an Airport Express?
And if this is your only Mac, you can just use the Remote app to play the music on it from your iOS device.
How can you possibly compare a Mac to� an Airport Express? I bought a Mac to have a COMPUTER not to stream music wirelessly.
What you should think about is: How hard is for a Mac to act like an Airport Express with the proper software? It shouldn't.
Why it there no software like this? Apple does not want to.
Fair enough; It's their technology. Sometimes though, people want different things. Glad to see quite a few people here want the same as me.
I have no idea what a Banana-TV is but for all that you want to do, an Airport Express it seems would do the trick. Is an Airport Express much more expensive than your Banana-TV?
Banana TV is software. It is $7.99. It makes your Mac act like an Apple TV - does not support audio only though.
It does something like: I can stream a video i just shot from my iPhone to my huge iMac screen - no AppleTV needed, no need to transfer the video to the iMac, no cables.
Now tell me this is not a better solution for casual use than having an AppleTV in terms of money, space, energy, hardware. You see, I don't even have a TV!
clintob
Oct 12, 03:18 PM
I assume you're not really equating natural selection and genetic evolution, with cultural factors like education.
Because they're actually not the same thing, nor do they work the same.
For instance, here's an interesting fact: dying is necessary for natural selection to work. Dying is NOT necessary for education to work.
So you see, there's an option that involves less dying and suffering. That's what you may be overlooking in your zeal :)
By your logic, why help anyone, when letting them die will make people "smarter and wiser?" Why, children who get hurt on skateboards and behind the wheel should be turned away from hospitals. We would create a super race worthy of the 3rd Reich :o
(Need I mention that much of mathematics, astronomy, and science came from "rudimentary" and "archaic" African scientists who were far ahead of their European counterparts? I'm guessing whatever you have been reading may have omitted some parts of history :) )
Ah, classic manipulation of an idea. At no point in that post did I say "helping people" is a bad thing, or that it should never be done. Quite the contrary... I actually said:
News About: Anna Faris
Anna Faris
Anna Faris decided to ditch
Anna Faris and Chris Pratt#39;s
Anna faris imdb images
Anna Faris
en indra
anna-faris-chris-pratt-gi.jpg
Release Date: 18 September 2009 Genre: Animation Cast: Anna Faris, Bill Hader, Bruce Campbell. Director: Phil Lord, Chris Miller.
Because they're actually not the same thing, nor do they work the same.
For instance, here's an interesting fact: dying is necessary for natural selection to work. Dying is NOT necessary for education to work.
So you see, there's an option that involves less dying and suffering. That's what you may be overlooking in your zeal :)
By your logic, why help anyone, when letting them die will make people "smarter and wiser?" Why, children who get hurt on skateboards and behind the wheel should be turned away from hospitals. We would create a super race worthy of the 3rd Reich :o
(Need I mention that much of mathematics, astronomy, and science came from "rudimentary" and "archaic" African scientists who were far ahead of their European counterparts? I'm guessing whatever you have been reading may have omitted some parts of history :) )
Ah, classic manipulation of an idea. At no point in that post did I say "helping people" is a bad thing, or that it should never be done. Quite the contrary... I actually said:
karthi
Sep 19, 04:20 PM
It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle...
This seems logical now, so can we expect better movies after ture video iPods.
This seems logical now, so can we expect better movies after ture video iPods.
starflyer
Apr 4, 12:21 PM
If they were running away and unarmed then the security guard was in the wrong.
Tennessee v Garner says that you cannot shoot an unarmed fleeing felon in the back.
I was being sarcastic. They were not running away and unarmed. They opened fire on the security guard. The use of lethal force was justified.
Tennessee v Garner says that you cannot shoot an unarmed fleeing felon in the back.
I was being sarcastic. They were not running away and unarmed. They opened fire on the security guard. The use of lethal force was justified.
jofarmer
Sep 12, 03:22 PM
Do the "older 5G" ipods support the new tv shows (640x480) and movies???? I don't care about the new search and such...Im just wondering about the movies and games.
Well Folks, you all seem to be concerned about if your iPod 5G is outdated..
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...
Well Folks, you all seem to be concerned about if your iPod 5G is outdated..
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...
Juss@mac.com
Sep 4, 08:44 PM
Anyone else notice that Elgato have now pulled their Eyehome media streaming device without a replacement? Anything to do with rumors of a rival device from Apple?
Doctor Q
Apr 28, 04:57 PM
Imagine if Numbers was a real competitor to Excel. Then Apple would really be sitting pretty. ;)
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
It's very, very telling. MS is riding the coattails of their universal licensing racket while Apple keeps changing the face of consumer tech. This day was bound to come.
This is the post-PC era and we'll see MS in decline.
It's very, very telling. MS is riding the coattails of their universal licensing racket while Apple keeps changing the face of consumer tech. This day was bound to come.
This is the post-PC era and we'll see MS in decline.
tehreflex
Apr 11, 07:16 AM
Now Apple is going to sue him.
p0intblank
Oct 12, 01:34 PM
Wow, it looks like it's finally happening. Sweet! :D
uv23
Sep 12, 09:20 PM
Apple's whole new "black is top of the line" trend is thoroughly idiotic. I literally removed my credit card from my wallet when I read on the event stream that Apple had released an 8gb nano, then replaced it when I read on about the 8gb model being black only. I hate black electronics. I want an aluminum 8gb iPod to match my PowerBook. Is that so much to ask?? Fine, if they want to only allow black for 8gb, but why limit us. Stupid stupid stupid.:mad:
Unorthodox
Aug 31, 05:32 PM
:eek:
Ya may want to check on world events every now and then :p
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html)
I could have used the lords name in vain that his name was John....
Im just messin' with yall.
I just didn't know he was German....
Ya may want to check on world events every now and then :p
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html)
I could have used the lords name in vain that his name was John....
Im just messin' with yall.
I just didn't know he was German....
nitynate
Sep 12, 02:53 PM
Dear Apple,
I appoligise for my earlier outburst.
I really do love you.
Well.... In a creepy-ish kind of way. THATS NOT THE POINT!!!!!
I want the 8GB nano in green.
Love,
Nathan
I appoligise for my earlier outburst.
I really do love you.
Well.... In a creepy-ish kind of way. THATS NOT THE POINT!!!!!
I want the 8GB nano in green.
Love,
Nathan
AidenShaw
Mar 22, 02:38 PM
I want to know where to get a list of products that hook onto Thunderbolt.
Rocketman
From terminal, to see all the shipping Thunderbolt products use the command
cat /dev/null
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
Coming summer 2011 - at least 3 months away.
Rocketman
From terminal, to see all the shipping Thunderbolt products use the command
cat /dev/null
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
Coming summer 2011 - at least 3 months away.
Sodner
Apr 20, 10:51 AM
Eh. Not that big of a deal as far as I'm concerned. It's a tracking file on my phone copied to my computer. I have plenty more to worry about like bank or CC info then my exact location at a given moment.
Hey everybody, I'm at work in Cranberry, PA right now! :eek:
Hey everybody, I'm at work in Cranberry, PA right now! :eek:
JAT
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.