ihaveNFC
May 7, 03:22 PM
Before the nostalgia wore off? You must mean novelty...
Yes, you're right. Novelty, not nostalgia. My brain is a little fried afta writin my dissertation.
Yes, you're right. Novelty, not nostalgia. My brain is a little fried afta writin my dissertation.
andiwm2003
Jul 21, 02:52 PM
I do agree that the new Pro towers need a much more proper launch while the other lines can just get a shiny new Core 2 Duo logo on their site and an update to Apple's Intel page.
Your copy pasta didn't work completely.
http://download.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/IntelQ22006earningsfoils.pdf
wow, most importantly on slide 3 they say that they launched the 965 chipset. that means they can switch to the 965 integrated GPU across the board for consumer macs. that would certainly help the heat issues, make the macs cheaper and less complicated to design for apple. standard parts and boards allow for even faster updates. good news.
Your copy pasta didn't work completely.
http://download.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/IntelQ22006earningsfoils.pdf
wow, most importantly on slide 3 they say that they launched the 965 chipset. that means they can switch to the 965 integrated GPU across the board for consumer macs. that would certainly help the heat issues, make the macs cheaper and less complicated to design for apple. standard parts and boards allow for even faster updates. good news.
regandarcy
Mar 27, 06:52 AM
I'm all for cloud computing as an added feature....but not as a replacement for traditional storage of media and data.
I mean, I hope Apple doesn't force people to be connected to the cloud. I think that would be a mistake. Mainly because it would force you to either have access to a wifi signal, or pay for an expensive data plan just to gain access to your media.
As it is, all the telecom companies are dropping their unlimited plans and switching to tiered pricing. I think this creates a problem for the user to freely use their content without constant fear of exceeding their data plans.
And what of people with iPod touches or wifi only ipads...who are not within range of a wifi signal....and cannot access their content as a result. That would be very frustrating and limiting. It would make their devices nothing more than expensive paper weights.
It also creates a problem for those with 3G ipads or iPhones trying to access large video or media files in their cloud I think. I mean have you ever tried to watch a YouTube video over 3G? It SUCKS! So you'd be using up tons of bandwidth on a tiered data plan for crappy quality. How is that good?
And if the iPhone 5 is the first apple device to use 4G speeds....won't that eat up even more bandwidth? Running an even greater risk of you going over your limit and being charged outrageous fees by your service provider? Be it ATT or Verizon?
I understand that the concept of the cloud is freedom at it's core....the ability to have access to your media across multiple devices without having to store it on just one...but then you become a slave to the telecom companies and their tiered data plans...thus defeating that freedom.
Plus it forces you to chose a 3G iPad or put 3G into iPod touches to make it useful.
So I get it, and I don't get it.
The original concept of the iPod was to be able to carry all your music with you. Total freedom. And that's what helped make it such a huge success. Then came the iPhone and iPad. Both equally cool for music and video. You could store all your data on them and listen or watch them at your leisure on the go.
But if you then force people to store their data on a cloud...and pay for an expensive tiered data plan to access that data...to me it becomes not so free anymore. In fact, it becomes downright restrictive and suffocating IMHO.
As long as Apple doesn't abandon the ability to store your media ON your device, I'm cool with this move. The cloud would just become an added bonus which you could use or not use at your discretion.
I just think having to be connected to the cloud via wifi or 3G to access your data is kind of annoying....not to mention potentially EXPENSIVE!
Once in awhile...ok. But not as ones main means of access. I much rather have the bulk of my music and data actually stored ON my device. Much more convenient if you ask me.
Flash drives are big enough to carry most if not all the music and video you need. Why store it all on apple servers on some big farm in North Carolina that you need to be connected to wifi or an expensive tiered data plan just to access it? Don't see the point.
Is it just me? :-)
I mean, I hope Apple doesn't force people to be connected to the cloud. I think that would be a mistake. Mainly because it would force you to either have access to a wifi signal, or pay for an expensive data plan just to gain access to your media.
As it is, all the telecom companies are dropping their unlimited plans and switching to tiered pricing. I think this creates a problem for the user to freely use their content without constant fear of exceeding their data plans.
And what of people with iPod touches or wifi only ipads...who are not within range of a wifi signal....and cannot access their content as a result. That would be very frustrating and limiting. It would make their devices nothing more than expensive paper weights.
It also creates a problem for those with 3G ipads or iPhones trying to access large video or media files in their cloud I think. I mean have you ever tried to watch a YouTube video over 3G? It SUCKS! So you'd be using up tons of bandwidth on a tiered data plan for crappy quality. How is that good?
And if the iPhone 5 is the first apple device to use 4G speeds....won't that eat up even more bandwidth? Running an even greater risk of you going over your limit and being charged outrageous fees by your service provider? Be it ATT or Verizon?
I understand that the concept of the cloud is freedom at it's core....the ability to have access to your media across multiple devices without having to store it on just one...but then you become a slave to the telecom companies and their tiered data plans...thus defeating that freedom.
Plus it forces you to chose a 3G iPad or put 3G into iPod touches to make it useful.
So I get it, and I don't get it.
The original concept of the iPod was to be able to carry all your music with you. Total freedom. And that's what helped make it such a huge success. Then came the iPhone and iPad. Both equally cool for music and video. You could store all your data on them and listen or watch them at your leisure on the go.
But if you then force people to store their data on a cloud...and pay for an expensive tiered data plan to access that data...to me it becomes not so free anymore. In fact, it becomes downright restrictive and suffocating IMHO.
As long as Apple doesn't abandon the ability to store your media ON your device, I'm cool with this move. The cloud would just become an added bonus which you could use or not use at your discretion.
I just think having to be connected to the cloud via wifi or 3G to access your data is kind of annoying....not to mention potentially EXPENSIVE!
Once in awhile...ok. But not as ones main means of access. I much rather have the bulk of my music and data actually stored ON my device. Much more convenient if you ask me.
Flash drives are big enough to carry most if not all the music and video you need. Why store it all on apple servers on some big farm in North Carolina that you need to be connected to wifi or an expensive tiered data plan just to access it? Don't see the point.
Is it just me? :-)
jaxstate
Aug 4, 08:38 AM
How do you know this. Are you some type of design tester for intel?
What is really going to help merom on the Mac are the SSE units. It has three to yonah's one . Mac OS X makes a lot better use of SIMD units than windows.
The 400 series celerons aren't that slow. They're more or less a Core Solo with a smaller cache.
What is really going to help merom on the Mac are the SSE units. It has three to yonah's one . Mac OS X makes a lot better use of SIMD units than windows.
The 400 series celerons aren't that slow. They're more or less a Core Solo with a smaller cache.
andiwm2003
Apr 25, 09:58 AM
How so? Everything he said fits the facts as we know them. There is NO evidence that this information gets transmitted to ANYONE, and believe me people are looking hard to prove otherwise. So this makes Steve look like he's telling the truth.
maybe Steve is right in saying that apple is not tracking us. however my iPhone is tracking my movements and stores the data in a unencrypted format that everyone can read out who has access to my phone.
that is the point that apple is critizised for. this is a gaping security hole! nobody has claimed apple is using this information for malicious purposes.
however Steve answered the question if apple is tracking users. a classic strawman.
maybe Steve is right in saying that apple is not tracking us. however my iPhone is tracking my movements and stores the data in a unencrypted format that everyone can read out who has access to my phone.
that is the point that apple is critizised for. this is a gaping security hole! nobody has claimed apple is using this information for malicious purposes.
however Steve answered the question if apple is tracking users. a classic strawman.
itcheroni
Apr 21, 12:50 AM
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
Spoony
Apr 18, 03:44 PM
If the iphones interface was "so obvious" why did my firm give me a Palm Treo for 3 years where I had this stick to push on icons with windows drop down menus?!?
I think people have short memories and forget how big of a change the original iphone was.
Also stop bringing up that ridiculous Prada phone. The only similarity is it had no plastic keys. The software on that phone was ridiculous. The iPhone worked b/c the best software company in the world built the underlying software.
Prada was just a fancy phone. The iphone was/is a small computer. That is why it was/is criticized as a phone so much. The phone part almost plays second fiddle.
I think people have short memories and forget how big of a change the original iphone was.
Also stop bringing up that ridiculous Prada phone. The only similarity is it had no plastic keys. The software on that phone was ridiculous. The iPhone worked b/c the best software company in the world built the underlying software.
Prada was just a fancy phone. The iphone was/is a small computer. That is why it was/is criticized as a phone so much. The phone part almost plays second fiddle.
ikir
May 4, 04:38 PM
I will download it from App Store the day of release!
SandynJosh
Apr 23, 09:41 PM
I will be honest and truthful and say for a mobile device on batteries, I'm very impressed as what the iPhone and iPad can do gaming wise.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
shawnce
Aug 4, 01:06 PM
Really?? I thought heat and battery life issues are directly connected to cpu chips. I wonder why they didn't put G5 in Powerbook :confused:
It is one factor out of MANY that affects battery life of a laptop (in fact often the screen backlight and video chipset is the bigger battery killer).
Anyway you get more bang for your battery "buck" with Merom then with the current Yonah... in other words at the same clock rate (and chipset) you won't see a change in battery life (in fact it may improve slightly).
It is one factor out of MANY that affects battery life of a laptop (in fact often the screen backlight and video chipset is the bigger battery killer).
Anyway you get more bang for your battery "buck" with Merom then with the current Yonah... in other words at the same clock rate (and chipset) you won't see a change in battery life (in fact it may improve slightly).
roland.g
May 4, 02:52 PM
I would get a new iMac now if I knew that Lion would run SL pricing at $29. Otherwise I will wait for a preload. But obviously pricing and a release date won't be forthcoming prior to WWDC at the earliest. Guess we will know more in about 5 weeks.
wovel
Apr 18, 04:01 PM
Not at all. They can use those components for producing Galaxy devices. And they can use free Foxconn resources (since they would not be assembling iPhones anymore) for assembling. :D
Lol.
There would still be minuscule demand for the galaxy lines. Just millions of people using old technology while Apple found our bought a new supplier :)
Lol.
There would still be minuscule demand for the galaxy lines. Just millions of people using old technology while Apple found our bought a new supplier :)
RandiC
Apr 25, 10:32 AM
Maybe you could shed some light on this for me before I switch to a Droid. They don't track me.
Switch to Droid they don't track me...... The most stupid comment I ever heard!!! Almost
Switch to Droid they don't track me...... The most stupid comment I ever heard!!! Almost
%25252525252BS%25252525252BCharles%25252525252BLee%25252525252B(render%25252525252Bphoto)%25252525252B(digital.library.ucla.edu).jpg "art nouveau design")
doug in albq
Apr 26, 03:54 PM
% of cool people...
95% iOS
04% Android
01% the rest
:p;)
95% iOS
04% Android
01% the rest
:p;)
CQd44
Mar 30, 10:34 AM
Aiden, I really like reading your posts. Please don't be rude when the poster was just asking and not forcing. I mean, you wouldn't act the same way if a child were to ask you for your prayers, why treat an adult with a different amount of respect?
Al Coholic
Mar 29, 01:09 PM
Hilarious that companies are copying Apple rumors now.Right. Like Apple invented everything.
lol.
You fanboys crack me up.
lol.
You fanboys crack me up.
dukebound85
Apr 10, 02:40 AM
Should you distribute first?
48/2(9+3)
2(9+3)=18+6=24
48/24=2
no you do this....
1) (9+3)=12
2) 48/2=24
3) 24*12=288
Multiplication does NOT take precedence over division
48/2(9+3)
2(9+3)=18+6=24
48/24=2
no you do this....
1) (9+3)=12
2) 48/2=24
3) 24*12=288
Multiplication does NOT take precedence over division
tlevier
Apr 18, 03:46 PM
couldn't Samsung simply get back at Apple by NOT making Apple's stuff? I mean, come on.
I don't think so. 1) I think Apple has an agreement that Samsung can't break for cheap. 2) Samsung makes money on that transaction. 3) I think it might actually be against the law, like an anti-competitive move.
I don't think so. 1) I think Apple has an agreement that Samsung can't break for cheap. 2) Samsung makes money on that transaction. 3) I think it might actually be against the law, like an anti-competitive move.
ampd
Aug 7, 05:51 PM
Well after using a Powerbook G4 for the longest time which was given to me for work, i decided that today I would make my first mac purchase and bought the new mac pro... I finally made the complete leap and soon I will be fully rid of Windows as I will be running only Gentoo and OS X. I'm overjoyed that I will be getting my first mac however I know I won't be so happy seeing the credit card bill...heres what I got:
Two 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme
250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s (Ill be adding in my 2 750gb hds)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
1GB (2 x 512MB)
1 x SuperDrive
Two 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme
250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s (Ill be adding in my 2 750gb hds)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
1GB (2 x 512MB)
1 x SuperDrive
Popeye206
Mar 28, 10:49 AM
No iPhone 5, but there will be iPhone invisio!
ROTF. Dated. That must be why the recent mobile industry event that Apple didn't sponsor nor attend voted iPhone the best phone on the market.
Well... it doesn't have Flash support, or 4G, or the fastest multi-core processor, or the largest screen!
Now of course, lack a Flash has not been a big deal for me, and just because 90% of the US does not have 4G yet doesn't matter. I know if I see someone with more specs than my iPhone I instantly start having technowhinnieitis attacks and feel inferior... even though my iPhone works great, is fast, has the best screen on the market and iOS is easy to use and work with... does not matter! I want more!!!! :rolleyes:
Oh.... I hope you can see the sarcasm! :p
The way I see it is they have a hot product line now... take their time, focus on the new OS's and give us something killer in the fall. I see no downside.
ROTF. Dated. That must be why the recent mobile industry event that Apple didn't sponsor nor attend voted iPhone the best phone on the market.
Well... it doesn't have Flash support, or 4G, or the fastest multi-core processor, or the largest screen!
Now of course, lack a Flash has not been a big deal for me, and just because 90% of the US does not have 4G yet doesn't matter. I know if I see someone with more specs than my iPhone I instantly start having technowhinnieitis attacks and feel inferior... even though my iPhone works great, is fast, has the best screen on the market and iOS is easy to use and work with... does not matter! I want more!!!! :rolleyes:
Oh.... I hope you can see the sarcasm! :p
The way I see it is they have a hot product line now... take their time, focus on the new OS's and give us something killer in the fall. I see no downside.
thetexan
Mar 29, 10:19 AM
And Amazon thinks crippling ioS compatibility will be good business? FAIL.
Why would Amazon spend time and money catering to the iOS platform when Apple is flaky on what it approves in the app store. We still have no idea how Apple's greedy "we want 30% of subscriber revenues" rule will effect some of the most popular iOS apps when Apple decides to start enforcing it this summer. When Apple rolls out their new ME service they could very well simply deny Amazon access to the app store. Imagine all the pissed off people at Amazon who paid only to find out they can't access their cloud services anymore thanks to Apple's decision.
Why would Amazon spend time and money catering to the iOS platform when Apple is flaky on what it approves in the app store. We still have no idea how Apple's greedy "we want 30% of subscriber revenues" rule will effect some of the most popular iOS apps when Apple decides to start enforcing it this summer. When Apple rolls out their new ME service they could very well simply deny Amazon access to the app store. Imagine all the pissed off people at Amazon who paid only to find out they can't access their cloud services anymore thanks to Apple's decision.
digitalbiker
Aug 11, 03:22 PM
I find it incredibly hard to believe that Apple intends to maintain the closeness in specs that are currently present between the MacBook Pro and MacBook. It makes more sense for Apple to move the MBP to the Core2 Duo and leave the MacBook to the Yonah. This leaves two more speed bumps for the MacBook. First 10 2.16, then to 2.33, all the while leaving the MBP time to advance with the Merom so it can gain momentum against the MacBook.
I also think Apple will leave the MB with Yonah. They will want product differentiation and price differentiation.
So I think they will drop the price to <$1000.00 for MB and re-design MBP to provide enhancements similar to MB but with faster Merom CPU's and higher price than MB.
I also think Apple will leave the MB with Yonah. They will want product differentiation and price differentiation.
So I think they will drop the price to <$1000.00 for MB and re-design MBP to provide enhancements similar to MB but with faster Merom CPU's and higher price than MB.
steadysignal
May 2, 07:40 PM
mac -
i really wish we could have gotten there.
it seems so foreign now, but in a system where all is divisible by ten makes life very easy.
but, we'll keep using our libres and ounces and such...the imperial way.
meh.
i really wish we could have gotten there.
it seems so foreign now, but in a system where all is divisible by ten makes life very easy.
but, we'll keep using our libres and ounces and such...the imperial way.
meh.
dhunt
Aug 11, 06:20 PM
I'm guessing they will be available the 17th. (that's when the major in mac promo ends) a.k.a. get people to buy our old macs by throwing a free nano at them so we can ship our new ones!
0 comments:
Post a Comment