zacman
Apr 20, 12:36 PM
1984 is not happening because companies and the government spies on you but because of people that are saying: "So what? It's not a big issue."
spicyapple
Sep 11, 09:37 PM
Since we are on the eve of the announcement, I thought I'd give my 2 cents. :)
I hoping for downloadable movies to own at either $9.99 or $14.99 and in high definition. It might be in 720P as a download service just can't compete with Netflix or walking to your friendly neighbourhood DVD rental store. And because the movies are in H.264, the download of HD movies should not take any more time than regular DVD, although if they released movies in 480P, it wouldn't be too bad, either, although with DRM and the time to download, doesn't make it competitive against DVD, plus you don't get the fancy packaging or the hard-disc copy.
I hoping for downloadable movies to own at either $9.99 or $14.99 and in high definition. It might be in 720P as a download service just can't compete with Netflix or walking to your friendly neighbourhood DVD rental store. And because the movies are in H.264, the download of HD movies should not take any more time than regular DVD, although if they released movies in 480P, it wouldn't be too bad, either, although with DRM and the time to download, doesn't make it competitive against DVD, plus you don't get the fancy packaging or the hard-disc copy.
fishcove
May 3, 10:25 AM
Who has room for two external displays on a desk that already has a 27" iMac?! Dual outs on the MBP would make much more sense, although achieving it may be more of a technical challenge in terms of GPU power.
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
dernhelm
Sep 10, 04:53 PM
Apple, please,
BRING BACK THE MAC CUBE concept!
A small yet powerful Mac. But this this at a REASONABLE price, to be a best-seller.
Thanks.
Put a Conroe processor in a midrange headless system, and you'll have what the cube was supposed to be. The problem is that Apple just finished rationalizing a minimized line. To add something else into their lineup makes for all kinds of headaches.
Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve
In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.
Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.
Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...
They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.
There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.
BRING BACK THE MAC CUBE concept!
A small yet powerful Mac. But this this at a REASONABLE price, to be a best-seller.
Thanks.
Put a Conroe processor in a midrange headless system, and you'll have what the cube was supposed to be. The problem is that Apple just finished rationalizing a minimized line. To add something else into their lineup makes for all kinds of headaches.
Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve
In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.
Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.
Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...
They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.
There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.
manu chao
Apr 11, 05:56 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
As mentioned multiple times in this thread: Airfoil
Airfoil runs on your Mac, Airfoil Speakers on your iOS devices. Start Airfoil Speakers (which is a free app) on your iOS devices and then select inside Airfoil on the Mac on which devices you want your sound being played. You can let it play on multiple devices at the same time and the app does a decent job of synchronising the sound. In addition to iOS devices any Airport Expresses and Apple TVs can also be selected. And you can select to broadcast the sound of individual applications on the Mac only (eg, iTunes only to avoid other system sounds being transmitted).
Or, for simpler needs, just enable Home Sharing in iTunes and play your Mac's iTunes content directly from your iOS device.
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
As mentioned multiple times in this thread: Airfoil
Airfoil runs on your Mac, Airfoil Speakers on your iOS devices. Start Airfoil Speakers (which is a free app) on your iOS devices and then select inside Airfoil on the Mac on which devices you want your sound being played. You can let it play on multiple devices at the same time and the app does a decent job of synchronising the sound. In addition to iOS devices any Airport Expresses and Apple TVs can also be selected. And you can select to broadcast the sound of individual applications on the Mac only (eg, iTunes only to avoid other system sounds being transmitted).
Or, for simpler needs, just enable Home Sharing in iTunes and play your Mac's iTunes content directly from your iOS device.
nomad01
Sep 14, 01:47 AM
Its an ipod with a longer screen and a slider.....well at least for me I see nothing too interesting in it...just another ipod you can talk to.
Bless
Yep I agree, it's not a revolutionary design but I'm REALLY more interested in what it will do. I'm really excited by an Apple phone operating system. Mobile iCal? Mobile Widgets? Who knows? Could just be an iPod with limited phone functionality.
Bring it on! :-)
Bless
Yep I agree, it's not a revolutionary design but I'm REALLY more interested in what it will do. I'm really excited by an Apple phone operating system. Mobile iCal? Mobile Widgets? Who knows? Could just be an iPod with limited phone functionality.
Bring it on! :-)
toddybody
Mar 22, 03:12 PM
Now I can rid myself of my 27" i7 2009 iMac.
Things that I would see/would like to see on the new iMacs:
- Thunderbolt (2 ports would be nice)
- Target DisplayPort Mode with HDMI + HDMI audio in, without needing to fully power up the entire computer (and a toggle that doesn't require an Apple keyboard)
- USB3 (I know Intel isn't natively putting USB3 on their chipsets until Ivy Bridge, but Apple could do the right thing and add this)
- get rid of the internal speakers as an option for more cooling
- at least a Radeon 6850 or GeForce GTX 560 Ti (preferably the nVidia card for CUDA/HW accelerated stuff) with at least 1 (2 please) GB of GDDR5 (I'm still boggled why they even offered a 256MB 6490 on the MacBook Pro)
- easily accessible 2.5" port for an SSD (doubt it)
- i7-2600 at the high end (Apple won't sell the K version, unless they go nuts and allow overclocking)
- a side mounted USB port or 2 would be nice, hell, more USB ports period (6-8) would be nice
- a second Firewire 800 (or 1600 if Apple is feeling frisky) port
- matte screen option (this, like the 2.5" bay, has a snowballs' chance in hell)
- Blu-Ray (see my note on the matte screen)
Wonder if Apple will allow for the full 32GB support that the Sandy Bridge processors can fully take, and the DDR3-1600 speeds, since they are limiting both on the MacBook Pros at the moment.
Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
Things that I would see/would like to see on the new iMacs:
- Thunderbolt (2 ports would be nice)
- Target DisplayPort Mode with HDMI + HDMI audio in, without needing to fully power up the entire computer (and a toggle that doesn't require an Apple keyboard)
- USB3 (I know Intel isn't natively putting USB3 on their chipsets until Ivy Bridge, but Apple could do the right thing and add this)
- get rid of the internal speakers as an option for more cooling
- at least a Radeon 6850 or GeForce GTX 560 Ti (preferably the nVidia card for CUDA/HW accelerated stuff) with at least 1 (2 please) GB of GDDR5 (I'm still boggled why they even offered a 256MB 6490 on the MacBook Pro)
- easily accessible 2.5" port for an SSD (doubt it)
- i7-2600 at the high end (Apple won't sell the K version, unless they go nuts and allow overclocking)
- a side mounted USB port or 2 would be nice, hell, more USB ports period (6-8) would be nice
- a second Firewire 800 (or 1600 if Apple is feeling frisky) port
- matte screen option (this, like the 2.5" bay, has a snowballs' chance in hell)
- Blu-Ray (see my note on the matte screen)
Wonder if Apple will allow for the full 32GB support that the Sandy Bridge processors can fully take, and the DDR3-1600 speeds, since they are limiting both on the MacBook Pros at the moment.
Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
Bomino
Apr 25, 02:45 AM
Because I actually care about my grandparents. They have done something genuine for me, they have cared for me, they have loved me, etc.
this love you have for your grand parents is called conditional love. AKA the love of a spoiled brat. AKA fake love.
EDIT: you know, if your parents thought of you this way, there would be absolutely no incentive to even want to feed you.
this love you have for your grand parents is called conditional love. AKA the love of a spoiled brat. AKA fake love.
EDIT: you know, if your parents thought of you this way, there would be absolutely no incentive to even want to feed you.
yojitani
Sep 1, 07:20 AM
Well, just to add to the Core2duo speculation, I got an e-ad from Dell this morning advertizing the Inspiron E1705 with the Core2Duo shipping Sept 15.
mkrishnan
Sep 19, 04:19 PM
I disagree. Dolby Digital is no longer reserved for rich �ber-geeks. Many "regular Joes" have a Dolby Digital setup now, and you can get a Dolby Digital receiver (all 5 normal channels powered) for under $100.
I think you have to draw a distinction between uber-geeks, also, and people who know what they like but who are not necessarily technophiles. The latter market has always been a core market to Apple. What I mean by that is that I don't think that the cost of the collateral equipment would stop Apple -- say only offering support for nicer TVs -- but I do think complexity could potentially stop them.
Even in this thread, it's clear that the switch from the relatively contained hardware world of Apple Macs and iPods to the TV world is going to be very complicated and confusing to a lot of people. While we're at our Macs, we have the luxury of "It Just Works." With all the different audio and video standards and so on in the TV world, it's not so simple at all.
I think you have to draw a distinction between uber-geeks, also, and people who know what they like but who are not necessarily technophiles. The latter market has always been a core market to Apple. What I mean by that is that I don't think that the cost of the collateral equipment would stop Apple -- say only offering support for nicer TVs -- but I do think complexity could potentially stop them.
Even in this thread, it's clear that the switch from the relatively contained hardware world of Apple Macs and iPods to the TV world is going to be very complicated and confusing to a lot of people. While we're at our Macs, we have the luxury of "It Just Works." With all the different audio and video standards and so on in the TV world, it's not so simple at all.
JAT
Oct 27, 03:18 PM
...Uh, Internet law 2001-B... because he's the international scapegoat of this decade. He must be blamed for all unfortunate and tragic events, no matter when, where, how or why they occured. Including and not limited to natural disasters, "acts of God", actions by foreign powers and anything else that blame could possibly (no matter how illogically) be assigned to. Because, dammit, if there were anyone else sitting in that oval office, the world would have progressed into a virtual utopia by now. :rolleyes:
My predictions for the next presidency: A variation of the same old ****, completely different guy.
LOL!
My predictions for the next presidency: A variation of the same old ****, completely different guy.
LOL!
sisyphus
Sep 10, 10:40 PM
Close, Manic Mouse. I dont understand people's belief that every Intel chip made has to go into an Apple machine. I doubt the Conroe will be used in any Mac nor the Kentsfield. The range is covered, and I'm sick of these silly rumors of Mac mid towers.
There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".
The thing is that it is very easy to layout a reasoning as to why Apple should/will use a Conroe chip in its line up. It is very difficult with the current product lineup to show why they wont.
As noted in a previous post, there is a $1000US price gap in their lineup that has been left in the lineup. There is currently a chip that would fill in that gap. This machine would steal slightly from both the lower and higher priced machines, yet open another market segment.
Apple has seen massive growth in the laptop market with the iBook. The MacBook perfectly filled a need with a certain market segment. The desktop Macs cover all of the segments except 1. This big gaping hole in their lineup has the perfect processor to meet its needs. Apple has designed a new case style for the Mac Pro. A smaller version would be simple to build re-using many of the components allowing for some economies of scale. This makes both the Mac Pro and the smaller sibling more cost effective in terms of components and assembly line manufacture.
The argument against goes. Well apple hasn't had a mid range headless machine since the G3 era. Which is of course true. However there was no way to differentiate products because there wasn't enough variability to the chips.
We now have:
Duo<Duo 2 (Merom) <Duo 2 (Conroe) <Xeon (Woodcrest)
(Mini < iMac < Mac < Mac Pro)
So just because Apple has had a big hole in its product matrix for the last few years means that it will continue to have a big hole in its product matrix until the end of time? Apple left that hole because it wasn't possible to create enough distiction between the product lines if they closed it. Now with the processors available from Intel, it is possible.
Apple is out to make $$$. It is a big corporation, and one that we all (usually) like because of the innovative easy to use products it delivers. It is making a MASSIVE consumer push right now. If a midrange machine will make them the most dough that is what they will deliver.
SJ likes clean product lines and that is what is going on.
Shuffle < Nano < iPod (< vPod)
MacBook < MacBook Pro
Mini < iMac (<Mac) < Mac Pro
X-Serve
They are all very clean product lines. The reason they destroyed all the product lines was that they had:
PM 5XXX
PM 6XXX
PM 7XXX
PM 8XXX
PM 9XXX
And there were overlapping prices and specs and God knows what. Unless you were a regular koolaid drinker it was extremely tough to keep track of what did what in the product matrix.
This will be a very clean and easy to understand matrix.
There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".
The thing is that it is very easy to layout a reasoning as to why Apple should/will use a Conroe chip in its line up. It is very difficult with the current product lineup to show why they wont.
As noted in a previous post, there is a $1000US price gap in their lineup that has been left in the lineup. There is currently a chip that would fill in that gap. This machine would steal slightly from both the lower and higher priced machines, yet open another market segment.
Apple has seen massive growth in the laptop market with the iBook. The MacBook perfectly filled a need with a certain market segment. The desktop Macs cover all of the segments except 1. This big gaping hole in their lineup has the perfect processor to meet its needs. Apple has designed a new case style for the Mac Pro. A smaller version would be simple to build re-using many of the components allowing for some economies of scale. This makes both the Mac Pro and the smaller sibling more cost effective in terms of components and assembly line manufacture.
The argument against goes. Well apple hasn't had a mid range headless machine since the G3 era. Which is of course true. However there was no way to differentiate products because there wasn't enough variability to the chips.
We now have:
Duo<Duo 2 (Merom) <Duo 2 (Conroe) <Xeon (Woodcrest)
(Mini < iMac < Mac < Mac Pro)
So just because Apple has had a big hole in its product matrix for the last few years means that it will continue to have a big hole in its product matrix until the end of time? Apple left that hole because it wasn't possible to create enough distiction between the product lines if they closed it. Now with the processors available from Intel, it is possible.
Apple is out to make $$$. It is a big corporation, and one that we all (usually) like because of the innovative easy to use products it delivers. It is making a MASSIVE consumer push right now. If a midrange machine will make them the most dough that is what they will deliver.
SJ likes clean product lines and that is what is going on.
Shuffle < Nano < iPod (< vPod)
MacBook < MacBook Pro
Mini < iMac (<Mac) < Mac Pro
X-Serve
They are all very clean product lines. The reason they destroyed all the product lines was that they had:
PM 5XXX
PM 6XXX
PM 7XXX
PM 8XXX
PM 9XXX
And there were overlapping prices and specs and God knows what. Unless you were a regular koolaid drinker it was extremely tough to keep track of what did what in the product matrix.
This will be a very clean and easy to understand matrix.
Marx55
Apr 22, 02:24 PM
Apple should produce a really light and small MacBook Air: 400 to 600 g and 7-inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
mac yahh!!!
Sep 1, 09:12 AM
Invites are suppose to go out today or Monday.
It is definately iTunes related. It is suppose to be adding movies to iTunes.
apperently though there going to be a bit expensive when compared to the tv shows "supposedly"- http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/itunes-movie-store-details-emerge-1499-per-new-movie-198140.php
It is definately iTunes related. It is suppose to be adding movies to iTunes.
apperently though there going to be a bit expensive when compared to the tv shows "supposedly"- http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/itunes-movie-store-details-emerge-1499-per-new-movie-198140.php
kenypowa
Apr 19, 07:45 AM
Samsung running Android look very very similar to Apple's, to the point where it causes confusion in the marketplace for consumers. I've seen several people mistake one of these things for an iPhone because they look that similar. It's a combination of Google's Android and Samsung's hardware.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
Anyone who is stupid enough to confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone shouldn't own a smartphone anyway. All they have to do is turn over the freaking phone and notice that big Samsung logo to know it's not an Apple product.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
Anyone who is stupid enough to confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone shouldn't own a smartphone anyway. All they have to do is turn over the freaking phone and notice that big Samsung logo to know it's not an Apple product.
drsmithy
May 4, 11:38 AM
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
You don't need two video cards to drive two outputs.
You don't need two video cards to drive two outputs.
Misplaced Mage
Sep 18, 05:58 PM
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
tatonka
Mar 24, 09:01 AM
I don't get peoples fascination with thunderbolt. Besides that it is new, it is pretty much useless right now. I agree that it is a cool port once they come out with the suitable accessories .. but til then, I couldn't care less.
The one thing I would like to see is the thunderbolt mag safe adapter as basically a one plug docking station .. not sure that is ever going to see the daylight though.
T.
The one thing I would like to see is the thunderbolt mag safe adapter as basically a one plug docking station .. not sure that is ever going to see the daylight though.
T.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Sep 5, 03:36 PM
The one more thing would be the airport. If they introduce airport with video, they eliminate the need for a mac media center. The airport IS the media center, and you can use *any* mac to power it.
While I agree, I disagree. I am not totally sold on wireless video networking. Filesizes are very large and god forbid it get interfierence with while you are watching a movie. Audio is OK because of very small birate. An airport "media center" is just not a good solution in some cases.
While I agree, I disagree. I am not totally sold on wireless video networking. Filesizes are very large and god forbid it get interfierence with while you are watching a movie. Audio is OK because of very small birate. An airport "media center" is just not a good solution in some cases.
Redline13
Nov 13, 03:11 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them. Either they have to license those images from Apple (which I doubt Apple would do) or make their own. Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I don't think you understand the specifics of the situation. Go back and read it again.
I don't think you understand the specifics of the situation. Go back and read it again.
Zeldain
Mar 22, 02:12 PM
Sandy Bridge Xeon's are due in November.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
Graphics performance.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
Graphics performance.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 25, 12:22 AM
It's unsafe to drive the SPEED LIMIT in the left lane because of people who drive so fast. If anyone tailgates me, I just slow down. That said, I don't drive in the left lane except to pass.
left lane rule as from my 12 years of driving and a fair amount long distance driving (5+ hours between cities) that the left lane is generally 5+ the speed limit. Once start going faster than that you have to start adjusting your speed more often and run into more of those random elements.
Yes I have done the 90+ in the left lane and flew but at the same time bad idea to pass a car doing 70 mph in the right lane. That is a huge dealt of speed to deal with. Generally when I was doing the 90+ it was long stretches WITH OUT CARS. I have once done 100 or so cruising but the hi way at the time speed was over a 100. I was being passed at 95-100 mph. Little unnerving when the speed limit was 70 mph. I would never of believed it if it was not for the fact that I was driving in it and my dad said something to me in the passenger seat that was end with 3 cars zipping passed me and I was not passing any one just being passed. I will call that a one time thing. Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-Don
Sorry you are a crappy driver. No matter what you try to say you are a crappy driver. You lack the experience needed. You have not had enough time to learn to see patterns and what to filter out and not filter out. Fact that you were going 90 MPH and had to slow down big time is proof of that fact. You should of spotted that issue a long time ahead of time and adjusted accordingly
Come back and talk to me when you have 5 years under your belt.
You should not be driving 90mph in a 70. 75 is really the limit. Yes as stated above there are cases were you can get away with it but I will say it is few and far between when you can cruise 10+ much less 20+ over the limit and not have an issue.
I am going to guess you were doing 90+ in a 65 which at your speed is consider legally wreckless endangerment and a cop can pull you DL. big time consider you age and complete lack of experince.
Remember one thing Dmac. YOU ARE A CRAPPY DRIVER and will be consider a crappy driver until you have 5 years under your belt. At that point then we can start judging you on how you drive.
And no I am not pulling 5 years out of my ass. Studies have shown it takes about 5 years of driving before someone really is consider experience after that point not a huge difference between someone at 20 years and 5 years in terms of how they judge and react to something. Just being young and stupid.
You Dmac are both young and inexperienced in driving. BAD BAD combination.
left lane rule as from my 12 years of driving and a fair amount long distance driving (5+ hours between cities) that the left lane is generally 5+ the speed limit. Once start going faster than that you have to start adjusting your speed more often and run into more of those random elements.
Yes I have done the 90+ in the left lane and flew but at the same time bad idea to pass a car doing 70 mph in the right lane. That is a huge dealt of speed to deal with. Generally when I was doing the 90+ it was long stretches WITH OUT CARS. I have once done 100 or so cruising but the hi way at the time speed was over a 100. I was being passed at 95-100 mph. Little unnerving when the speed limit was 70 mph. I would never of believed it if it was not for the fact that I was driving in it and my dad said something to me in the passenger seat that was end with 3 cars zipping passed me and I was not passing any one just being passed. I will call that a one time thing. Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-Don
Sorry you are a crappy driver. No matter what you try to say you are a crappy driver. You lack the experience needed. You have not had enough time to learn to see patterns and what to filter out and not filter out. Fact that you were going 90 MPH and had to slow down big time is proof of that fact. You should of spotted that issue a long time ahead of time and adjusted accordingly
Come back and talk to me when you have 5 years under your belt.
You should not be driving 90mph in a 70. 75 is really the limit. Yes as stated above there are cases were you can get away with it but I will say it is few and far between when you can cruise 10+ much less 20+ over the limit and not have an issue.
I am going to guess you were doing 90+ in a 65 which at your speed is consider legally wreckless endangerment and a cop can pull you DL. big time consider you age and complete lack of experince.
Remember one thing Dmac. YOU ARE A CRAPPY DRIVER and will be consider a crappy driver until you have 5 years under your belt. At that point then we can start judging you on how you drive.
And no I am not pulling 5 years out of my ass. Studies have shown it takes about 5 years of driving before someone really is consider experience after that point not a huge difference between someone at 20 years and 5 years in terms of how they judge and react to something. Just being young and stupid.
You Dmac are both young and inexperienced in driving. BAD BAD combination.
Alpinism
Aug 28, 12:45 PM
Interesting to see Apple's move. Traditionally with PowerPC the upgrades are more serene and not as volatile and frequent as the intels.
As a lot of Apple users are "trendy, cool consumers", they might get pissed off at these "more frequent updates" that makes their "cool investments" absolete faster. :eek:
As a lot of Apple users are "trendy, cool consumers", they might get pissed off at these "more frequent updates" that makes their "cool investments" absolete faster. :eek:
pyramid6
Oct 27, 10:12 AM
I highly doubt Apple is the forth worse company in the world. Greenpeace is just trying to ride Apple's popularity. I love it when groups practice civil disobedience, get punished, and then complain about it. You break the rules, you are supposed to get punished. That is the point of civil disobedience. Anyway, Greenpeace isn't stupid, even if they have lost thier way.