PeterQVenkman
Mar 22, 03:31 PM
Honestly, if it made any sense whatsoever then Apple wouldn't have killed it. Do the math.
If it didn't make sense Apple wouldn't have sold the 24" in the first place. Do the math.
You're living in the past, kid.
I can't believe you're actually sounding snobby about an iMac screen size. Wow.
If it didn't make sense Apple wouldn't have sold the 24" in the first place. Do the math.
You're living in the past, kid.
I can't believe you're actually sounding snobby about an iMac screen size. Wow.
EagerDragon
Sep 9, 06:59 PM
I stopped at the Apple store this morning and tried out the 24 inch iMac and the Mac Pro. These are sweet machines. No did not buy anything.
The systems both had 1 gig on them and I compared them to a MacBook Pro. One weird thing.... the 24 incher had some stuttering on the iMoviedemo they all had. However the second time I tried it it was smoth as silk. I think it was not cached in memory and since the second time it was it ran smothly. I was also plesantly surpriced that the 24 incher screen was very readable at it highest setting even with my bad eyes. Nice screen realstate and resolution with nice easy to read fonts.
Im still waiting for Leopard to release these powerful anymals of their chains. By them the systems will be even better, maybe even incluse Santa Rosa.
The systems both had 1 gig on them and I compared them to a MacBook Pro. One weird thing.... the 24 incher had some stuttering on the iMoviedemo they all had. However the second time I tried it it was smoth as silk. I think it was not cached in memory and since the second time it was it ran smothly. I was also plesantly surpriced that the 24 incher screen was very readable at it highest setting even with my bad eyes. Nice screen realstate and resolution with nice easy to read fonts.
Im still waiting for Leopard to release these powerful anymals of their chains. By them the systems will be even better, maybe even incluse Santa Rosa.
AidenShaw
Mar 23, 09:59 AM
LOL! You might want to ask them what the data rates on the actual hard drive (or drives) in the case is. LaCie makes nice stuff, but it's quite gimmicky to only talk about interface transfer rates when the real performance is dependent on the hard drives.
2.5" laptop hard drives, at that, for the 1TB model.
In RAID-0 no less, so the probability of failure is doubled.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ...
Do you mean 2 Gb/s ? No laptop drive can sustain 1 GB/s - few can sustain much more than 100 MB/s.
2.5" laptop hard drives, at that, for the 1TB model.
In RAID-0 no less, so the probability of failure is doubled.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ...
Do you mean 2 Gb/s ? No laptop drive can sustain 1 GB/s - few can sustain much more than 100 MB/s.
Stridder44
Jul 14, 01:05 PM
To all you G5/PPC fanboys:
http://www.crazyass13.com/wp-content/theburgerking.jpg
http://www.crazyass13.com/wp-content/theburgerking.jpg
batitombo
Mar 22, 09:18 PM
Heh, and I just got a new MBP :/
levitynyc
Sep 9, 11:53 AM
I'm not a gaming expert, but from what I've read, 512MB is no faster than 256MB for most current gaming applications, it's the throughput of the GPU that counts. Do any gamers out there want to comment on this?
I don't think that you could run Oblivion particularly well with only 256MB of Video Memory. Maybe you could, but you couldn't nearly max of the Graphics or else you would suffer some frame rate issues.
I don't think that you could run Oblivion particularly well with only 256MB of Video Memory. Maybe you could, but you couldn't nearly max of the Graphics or else you would suffer some frame rate issues.
dukebound85
Apr 25, 12:44 AM
I personally love how I get the bad rap, when the woman was the one going under the speed limit and attempted to breakcheck me first. She got what was coming to her. Had she just had some common courtesy and moved over, nothing would of happened. Instead she decided that she had to play traffic cop.
You people are all laughable.
-Don
You deserve a bad rap:rolleyes: There is nothing illegal going 5 under. It is illegal to be going 20 over. If you get caught, that is like an auto revocation of your license to give you an idea how serious it is
And you call us laughable? How about you start practicing safe driving habits before you kill someone bud:cool:
What is with your sense of you doing nothing wrong? seriously...the issue lies pretty much all with you as far as I am concerned...
You people are all laughable.
-Don
You deserve a bad rap:rolleyes: There is nothing illegal going 5 under. It is illegal to be going 20 over. If you get caught, that is like an auto revocation of your license to give you an idea how serious it is
And you call us laughable? How about you start practicing safe driving habits before you kill someone bud:cool:
What is with your sense of you doing nothing wrong? seriously...the issue lies pretty much all with you as far as I am concerned...
Cheffy Dave
Apr 22, 03:22 PM
AMD Fusion w/RadeonHD 6xxx and Price drop to $799 for the 11" and $899 for 13.3" - now that would send the sales skyrocketing.
What do you think of those specs Scottsdale ol friend?:apple:
What do you think of those specs Scottsdale ol friend?:apple:
balamw
Sep 1, 12:55 AM
Please explain to me how a computer company would benefit from aquiring a camera company because I just don't see it.
Canon is far more than just a camera company, even tough that is their core business.
In the consumer area, their scanners and printers are usually quite decent.
However, I too just don't see the synergy.
B
Canon is far more than just a camera company, even tough that is their core business.
In the consumer area, their scanners and printers are usually quite decent.
However, I too just don't see the synergy.
B
LCC
Sep 21, 03:18 AM
Let's hope there is the ability to import large address books with multiple contact numbers. Most cell phones allow you up to 500 contacts; some up to 1,000 (with a maximum of three numbers per contact).
The memory is there for the music, allow Power Users the choice of dedicating it to contact numbers and other data. The only other option is to carry around a bulky PDA phone.
The memory is there for the music, allow Power Users the choice of dedicating it to contact numbers and other data. The only other option is to carry around a bulky PDA phone.
johneaston
Apr 22, 03:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So this cloud thing will allow me to listen to my music on multiple devices that have an internet connection.
Well I can already listen to my music on my MacBook, iPad and iPhone so why would I want it?
So this cloud thing will allow me to listen to my music on multiple devices that have an internet connection.
Well I can already listen to my music on my MacBook, iPad and iPhone so why would I want it?
KnightWRX
Apr 30, 04:01 PM
Thunderbolt promises a faster connector technology to drive external displays
Right now, Thunderbolt does not deliver faster connector technology to drive external displays. Displayport 1,1a has a bit more bandwidth, Displayport 1,2 has more than twice the bandwidth.
ThunderBolt to USB 3.0 adapters do exist
Link ?
That display isn't happening this time.
You're saying they aren't going to ship the 27" iMac with its current IPS screen with a resolution of 2560x1440 ? Proof ?
Right now, Thunderbolt does not deliver faster connector technology to drive external displays. Displayport 1,1a has a bit more bandwidth, Displayport 1,2 has more than twice the bandwidth.
ThunderBolt to USB 3.0 adapters do exist
Link ?
That display isn't happening this time.
You're saying they aren't going to ship the 27" iMac with its current IPS screen with a resolution of 2560x1440 ? Proof ?
Jefferyd32
Apr 30, 02:04 PM
Where is the new Mac Mini update. I have been waiting and waiting to set up my HTPC.
DVK916
Jul 19, 10:59 PM
Links please. Both low end Merom and Allendale have the same amount of cache. Still, Allendale clocks higher and faster.
Who is talking about low end Merom. I am talking about higher end with 4mb of Cache.
I highly doubt apple would use a low end merom, when they can go with a higher end.
The MacBook and MacBook Pro will both get 4mb Meroms.
Who is talking about low end Merom. I am talking about higher end with 4mb of Cache.
I highly doubt apple would use a low end merom, when they can go with a higher end.
The MacBook and MacBook Pro will both get 4mb Meroms.
Dustman
Apr 15, 07:40 AM
LOL, and yet you still haven't given any examples.
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Dude, take a chill pill. Your arrogance is making you seem like a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
I see Thunderbolt starting off strong, but USB 3 taking over and likely showing up on more devices than TB. USB 3 will likely become more popular, but TB is always going to be there as an option. I do not see it being built in to every PC on the market though like USB 3 will.
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Dude, take a chill pill. Your arrogance is making you seem like a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
I see Thunderbolt starting off strong, but USB 3 taking over and likely showing up on more devices than TB. USB 3 will likely become more popular, but TB is always going to be there as an option. I do not see it being built in to every PC on the market though like USB 3 will.
GGJstudios
Mar 19, 02:17 PM
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
Slix
Apr 22, 11:48 AM
Awesome. I want a current MBA, but they're a tad too much right now. This will lower those prices.
Al Coholic
Mar 30, 01:22 PM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
I have nothing to back this up but I'm thinking one never sees the word "Windows" without Microsoft accompanying it somewhere. It's more of a phrase which can indeed be trademarked.
Could be wrong of course.
Also of note is an attempt to own the word "Thunderbolt". I don't think one can copyright the weather.
I have nothing to back this up but I'm thinking one never sees the word "Windows" without Microsoft accompanying it somewhere. It's more of a phrase which can indeed be trademarked.
Could be wrong of course.
Also of note is an attempt to own the word "Thunderbolt". I don't think one can copyright the weather.
Christopher387A
Apr 25, 02:11 PM
I can't wait! :D
jimmyjoemccrow
Jan 2, 11:58 AM
I accessed a site a couple of days ago and it said "You have a problem with your Mac please click OK to fix the problem." I was on my iPhone at the time but it does show that someone took the trouble to write a program that identified I was on an Apple operating system.
samiwas
Apr 18, 04:26 PM
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
Ooohhh. So being on a salary, even a measly one for a basic desk job, means you are now at your employers beck and call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, come hell or high water? Got it. So, if more work comes in and the amount you are given to do increases substantially, you just suck it up and work that many more hours because they won't hire more people for the extra work? That sounds like a pretty awful world...but pretty much what goes on. Too bad people like you manage to convince people it's how life should be.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
Ooohhh. So being on a salary, even a measly one for a basic desk job, means you are now at your employers beck and call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, come hell or high water? Got it. So, if more work comes in and the amount you are given to do increases substantially, you just suck it up and work that many more hours because they won't hire more people for the extra work? That sounds like a pretty awful world...but pretty much what goes on. Too bad people like you manage to convince people it's how life should be.
KnightWRX
Apr 23, 07:18 AM
I still don't get why there is still no mention of built-in 3G support. For a device as mobile as the MBA, it's beyond me why it's still missing.
But maybe I'm missing something here :-)
Yes, built-in 3G is more costly to buy, usually locked into a particular carrier (what do you mean I can't switch my 1500$ laptop to a new carrier ?) and with the Rev D's 2nd USB port being next to a display port, the "extension" cable is moot.
So you are quite missing tons of things. The current scheme of "get a stick from your carrier" is the best as far as costs and carrier non-attachment go. I tether to my iPhone using Bluetooth anyhow, making the USB thing even more moot.
Built-in 3G is overrated.
But maybe I'm missing something here :-)
Yes, built-in 3G is more costly to buy, usually locked into a particular carrier (what do you mean I can't switch my 1500$ laptop to a new carrier ?) and with the Rev D's 2nd USB port being next to a display port, the "extension" cable is moot.
So you are quite missing tons of things. The current scheme of "get a stick from your carrier" is the best as far as costs and carrier non-attachment go. I tether to my iPhone using Bluetooth anyhow, making the USB thing even more moot.
Built-in 3G is overrated.
cube
Mar 29, 12:22 PM
Seems believable...all those people that bought Nokia phones obviously did not care that Symbian was outdated. Why will they not buy Nokia with a much modern OS under the hood?
I bought a Symbian Nokia because I wanted a cheap 3G phone which was open and with an acceptable OS.
Obviously, that's going to be my first and last Nokia now.
I want a phone with real Java, so my most likely candidate next time is QNX, if RIM makes a good inexpensive smartphone.
I bought a Symbian Nokia because I wanted a cheap 3G phone which was open and with an acceptable OS.
Obviously, that's going to be my first and last Nokia now.
I want a phone with real Java, so my most likely candidate next time is QNX, if RIM makes a good inexpensive smartphone.
matrixmaniac
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
hideous? Really?
I am guessing this is the kind of laptop you admire for its beautiful case design, right?
http://www.gearfuse.com/a-rugged-dell-laptop-john-connor-would-use/
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 :d
I am guessing this is the kind of laptop you admire for its beautiful case design, right?
http://www.gearfuse.com/a-rugged-dell-laptop-john-connor-would-use/
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 :d
0 comments:
Post a Comment