Joshuarocks
Apr 7, 11:39 AM
Also this just in... Windows 8 appears to be running off of a Unix like platform underneath the GUI interface.. this could be the beginning of a Unix based OS similar to MAC OS X itself.
Ballmer has outdone himself this time.
Ballmer has outdone himself this time.
0010101
Nov 16, 12:53 PM
Moving to, or simply including a 'budget' line of AMD powered Macs wouldn't be a big deal at all.
The vast majority of everyday computer users don't know the difference between AMD and Intel, anyway.
AMD is more than capable of meeting Apple demand, by the way, considering that if Apple were to include an AMD option, that option would likely only represent a portion of an already small market share.. and more than likely in a low end 'budget' machine.
What Apple has learned over the years, is it's best not to box yourself in with a single part manufacturer like they did with the PPC. Their migration from ADB to USB, from NuBus to PCI & AGP.. Apple has really been making the transition from proprietary hardware for some time.. the actual CPU was really the last piece in a much larger puzzle.
As mentioned earlier, many people in the 'osx86' camp have successfully installed OSX on AMD powered machines, and in many cases, with great results rivaling that of the higher end Intel powered machines. The only stumbling block appears to be that Apple has been using specific Intel motherboard chipsets, which aren't overly AMD friendly.
It would be easy for Apple to include AMD processor support in 10.5, and release it along with a line of sub $500 iMac machines.
Although I suspect Apple probably enjoys a nice price break on the Intel hardware, a price break that very well could hinge on Apple being an 'exclusive' Intel customer.
I personally have never cared for AMD processors much.
The vast majority of everyday computer users don't know the difference between AMD and Intel, anyway.
AMD is more than capable of meeting Apple demand, by the way, considering that if Apple were to include an AMD option, that option would likely only represent a portion of an already small market share.. and more than likely in a low end 'budget' machine.
What Apple has learned over the years, is it's best not to box yourself in with a single part manufacturer like they did with the PPC. Their migration from ADB to USB, from NuBus to PCI & AGP.. Apple has really been making the transition from proprietary hardware for some time.. the actual CPU was really the last piece in a much larger puzzle.
As mentioned earlier, many people in the 'osx86' camp have successfully installed OSX on AMD powered machines, and in many cases, with great results rivaling that of the higher end Intel powered machines. The only stumbling block appears to be that Apple has been using specific Intel motherboard chipsets, which aren't overly AMD friendly.
It would be easy for Apple to include AMD processor support in 10.5, and release it along with a line of sub $500 iMac machines.
Although I suspect Apple probably enjoys a nice price break on the Intel hardware, a price break that very well could hinge on Apple being an 'exclusive' Intel customer.
I personally have never cared for AMD processors much.
AppleScruff1
Apr 11, 12:04 AM
No, they licensed out their OS to everyone and anyone who could slam together a box and then set about strong-arming box-makers to use Windows and only Windows.
Plus, PCs were and are cheap.
The success of Windows has NOTHING to do with it's quality as an OS, and has everything to do with their comfortable universal licensing racket.
So how did they copy Apple? Having 90% of the market without a quality product one can only imagine what they could have done with a good product.
Plus, PCs were and are cheap.
The success of Windows has NOTHING to do with it's quality as an OS, and has everything to do with their comfortable universal licensing racket.
So how did they copy Apple? Having 90% of the market without a quality product one can only imagine what they could have done with a good product.
japanime
Mar 25, 03:46 AM
the release in retrospect was a milestone in Apple's transformation from a struggling computer company into the major technology behemoth it is today.
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
tinman0
Apr 16, 02:35 AM
Is the difference that Apple is more willing to talk to and play ball with the content providers? Is it that Google has "changing its demands"? Is it about technical concerns? Are the content provides trying to guess who the winning horse will be?
Haha, got to laugh when Google get a set back. As an executive a few months ago said about Google, "it's like negotiating with someone who is autistic".
At the end of the day, Google have tramped over the copyright of all the companies it's trying to get a deal from (think YouTube), chances are that it's also trying to negotiate better terms than Apple with little things like giving everyone else worse terms than them (think the books deal), and so forth.
And frankly, what do Google have to offer the record companies that Apple and Amazon don't?
So think about the autistic comment, think about the terms they will be looking for, and you have to conclude that there is no reason that to think the record companies want or need Google as a partner.
Google aren't bringing new subscribers so the chances are, Google are trying to bring prices down, which will ultimately cost the record companies money.
Haha, got to laugh when Google get a set back. As an executive a few months ago said about Google, "it's like negotiating with someone who is autistic".
At the end of the day, Google have tramped over the copyright of all the companies it's trying to get a deal from (think YouTube), chances are that it's also trying to negotiate better terms than Apple with little things like giving everyone else worse terms than them (think the books deal), and so forth.
And frankly, what do Google have to offer the record companies that Apple and Amazon don't?
So think about the autistic comment, think about the terms they will be looking for, and you have to conclude that there is no reason that to think the record companies want or need Google as a partner.
Google aren't bringing new subscribers so the chances are, Google are trying to bring prices down, which will ultimately cost the record companies money.
eggstone
Nov 24, 09:18 AM
Nike+ armband is actually discounted by $11, not $5 as stated on page 1. this brings the price down to $18 (or $19.26 after [7%] sales tax).
No, my browser says only $5 off, that is, $24 before tax.
No, my browser says only $5 off, that is, $24 before tax.
Mal
Jul 25, 12:03 AM
I'd be worried about that exept one incontrovertible fact. Steve Jobs has more creative spark in his left pinky than M$ does in it whole genetic tree.
I think that's the idea. The implication I got was that they were going to give Microsoft a generous stretch of rope and let them hang themselves.
jW
I think that's the idea. The implication I got was that they were going to give Microsoft a generous stretch of rope and let them hang themselves.
jW
applefan69
Mar 24, 04:27 PM
I never really liked OS X until 10.5.
GASP. your too picky, I fell in love with it at 10.3. Expose was a big thing in my opinion
GASP. your too picky, I fell in love with it at 10.3. Expose was a big thing in my opinion
penter
Dec 25, 02:20 PM
Yes they do. BUT not when it means a crap ass experience for the customer. Because that just results in returns, complaints etc. LTE right now is only in a handful of major cities and not even perfect coverage there.
As for the whole "but android" argument, Apple doesn't do things just because everyone else does. Which is why we still don't have blu-ray in their computers despite every other computer (including even some so called netbooks) having had blu-ray drives for at least the last year. We also don't have Flash in the iphone etc despite every other smart phone having Flash and every other announced tablet saying it would.
I don't buy the flash argument. Thats actually a pretty complicated subject...
But I see what you mean.
Now, can anyone please explain what the difference between 'true 4G' and LTE?
Is LTE something else entirely? Something that bridges the CDMA and GSM technologies, allowing CDMA phones to use chips, and chip-based phones to be compatible with CDMA networks?
I've wikipediaed the whole deal, but i don't really get it...
It seems like there are *two* kinds of LTE as well. Is that where the difference between true 4G and fake 4G lies? One is LTE, and the other is TRUE LTE?
And how can a carrier say it has 4G, if its not *really* 4G? is it just a glorified 3G system?
On a different note, Christmas is here... any news on the Verizon iPhone release?
Sry for so many questions
As for the whole "but android" argument, Apple doesn't do things just because everyone else does. Which is why we still don't have blu-ray in their computers despite every other computer (including even some so called netbooks) having had blu-ray drives for at least the last year. We also don't have Flash in the iphone etc despite every other smart phone having Flash and every other announced tablet saying it would.
I don't buy the flash argument. Thats actually a pretty complicated subject...
But I see what you mean.
Now, can anyone please explain what the difference between 'true 4G' and LTE?
Is LTE something else entirely? Something that bridges the CDMA and GSM technologies, allowing CDMA phones to use chips, and chip-based phones to be compatible with CDMA networks?
I've wikipediaed the whole deal, but i don't really get it...
It seems like there are *two* kinds of LTE as well. Is that where the difference between true 4G and fake 4G lies? One is LTE, and the other is TRUE LTE?
And how can a carrier say it has 4G, if its not *really* 4G? is it just a glorified 3G system?
On a different note, Christmas is here... any news on the Verizon iPhone release?
Sry for so many questions
Aperture
Apr 4, 03:20 PM
In your car (Drive SLOW) take your computer (while the 360 is connected) and go up and down the street(s) recording where the signal drops off and the 360 disconnects. Then I would try to make SURE it is the house you think it is. Oh & perhaps you could post a screenshot of your street(s) from google earth, (just a picture, we dont need the address) so we can see where you are getting the strongest signals/etc. (see below for example)
Here is what I mean:
http://www.kevinschaefer.net/googlearth.jpg
Here is what I mean:
http://www.kevinschaefer.net/googlearth.jpg
cube
Apr 21, 02:07 PM
I think that when you vote, all the ratings in the page should be updated, to minimize people mistakenly complaining about the values changing by more than one.
I also think the votes should be guaranteed private.
I also think the votes should be guaranteed private.
chaosbunny
May 4, 12:53 AM
If you ask a graphic designer, it's useless. :)
*LTD*
Apr 22, 06:48 PM
Sorry to break it to you but a device that records my location and saves that for reporting back, or for someone else to read is a serious breach of my privacy. As I stated, the police were fully aware of this, making this privacy breach more big brother like then anything else.
If anyone else were doing this, you'd be crying foul so fast but because its your beloved apple, they get a pass for recording your locations :confused:
No.
My locations aren't a secret. I can be photographed, recorded on video, and SEEN by everyday people.
You want privacy? Stay the **** home. There's your privacy. You have a lease, you own property, you have an address, you're on the grid. You can be found very, very easily. Especially by your creditors. Do you know that your credit report contains virtually everything about you? Employers, current and former, addresses, current and former, active credit products, dormant credit products, your bill paying history, Social Security Number, date of birth, emergency contacts/next of kin, any legal items against you, any inquiries ever made by creditors or their partners (collections agencies), etc. Any creditor or prospective creditor can have a look at it - and that includes ALL of their partners.
Tracking where you go is NOTHING.
You walk out the door, you're fair game. I have nothing to hide. I don't have the nuclear launch codes, and the big bad government and guys in the black helicopters probably know that I don't have them. Do you? LOL
Much ado about nothing. This stuff is benign for the average person.
I don't care if Apple does it, or Google, or Microsloth. What exactly are they going to do with my location information? Send a black car to tail me?
It's the *principle* of all this that's got you worried. But in *practice* there's really no affect to you. You think it's more control over your life by someone else, but it really isn't.
Live with it.
If anyone else were doing this, you'd be crying foul so fast but because its your beloved apple, they get a pass for recording your locations :confused:
No.
My locations aren't a secret. I can be photographed, recorded on video, and SEEN by everyday people.
You want privacy? Stay the **** home. There's your privacy. You have a lease, you own property, you have an address, you're on the grid. You can be found very, very easily. Especially by your creditors. Do you know that your credit report contains virtually everything about you? Employers, current and former, addresses, current and former, active credit products, dormant credit products, your bill paying history, Social Security Number, date of birth, emergency contacts/next of kin, any legal items against you, any inquiries ever made by creditors or their partners (collections agencies), etc. Any creditor or prospective creditor can have a look at it - and that includes ALL of their partners.
Tracking where you go is NOTHING.
You walk out the door, you're fair game. I have nothing to hide. I don't have the nuclear launch codes, and the big bad government and guys in the black helicopters probably know that I don't have them. Do you? LOL
Much ado about nothing. This stuff is benign for the average person.
I don't care if Apple does it, or Google, or Microsloth. What exactly are they going to do with my location information? Send a black car to tail me?
It's the *principle* of all this that's got you worried. But in *practice* there's really no affect to you. You think it's more control over your life by someone else, but it really isn't.
Live with it.
wakerider017
Oct 10, 07:37 PM
Just my opinion...
This iPod will be 400+ when/if it comes out...
For that kinda money I would much rather invest in a macbook!!!
With student discount Macbook is only about 500 more...
Yea they are apples and oranges... but a liitle macbook would make a nice portable video device.
This iPod will be 400+ when/if it comes out...
For that kinda money I would much rather invest in a macbook!!!
With student discount Macbook is only about 500 more...
Yea they are apples and oranges... but a liitle macbook would make a nice portable video device.
Thomas Veil
Mar 3, 08:36 PM
Just found out about the anti-gay stuff myself. This be the language: (http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/03/ohio-sb-5-includes-anti-gay-marriage-language/)
Sec. 3101.01 of S.B. 5: … A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state. The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void.
And this be the entire bill. (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_5_PS_N.html)
These people are completely out of control (per NT1440).
Sec. 3101.01 of S.B. 5: … A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state. The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void.
And this be the entire bill. (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_5_PS_N.html)
These people are completely out of control (per NT1440).
ipodtoucher
Apr 12, 08:09 PM
Man, now I have the taste for one.
Oh I could use some of that right now...even though it's only 9 in the morning :p
Yeah I almost got another one today hahaha but I went to Chop't instead mmmm
http://www.choptsalad.com/mobile/chipotlechop_logo.gif
Oh I could use some of that right now...even though it's only 9 in the morning :p
Yeah I almost got another one today hahaha but I went to Chop't instead mmmm
http://www.choptsalad.com/mobile/chipotlechop_logo.gif
doctoree
Apr 15, 03:20 PM
Honestly, I dig the look of it but I have my doubts about the sharp edges. I can almost promise you that the photos are faked but I'm seeing that most of us already know that. I can see the body being aluminum- isn't the Droid aluminum? There would definitely need to be a place for the antenna- black plastic or something.
I'm hoping for something different this time. My 3G has held up well except for a broken ear speaker, but I'd like to see them push it a little as far as design. Every time I see an EVO 4G- I look at it longingly.
Haha, "pushing" the design. Thats very tempting, many companies do just that. Fortunately Apple DOESNT!
I'm hoping for something different this time. My 3G has held up well except for a broken ear speaker, but I'd like to see them push it a little as far as design. Every time I see an EVO 4G- I look at it longingly.
Haha, "pushing" the design. Thats very tempting, many companies do just that. Fortunately Apple DOESNT!
skottichan
Apr 29, 03:52 PM
Yeah, I preferred the iOS scrollbars, and the slider buttons. I know, developers hate change.
Ugg
May 4, 04:46 PM
Which brings me back to my initial reply. A "Firearm" has ZERO possibility of injuring your child, until someone behaves irresponsibly. I am fine with a doctor providing a pamphlet of common household hazards and steps to prevent them, but I get the feeling this is not the case. I can too easily imagine the doctor going off on a tangent about firearms deaths statistics, etc...
But again, the most important part: If you dont want your doctor "politicing" you, GO TO A NEW DOCTOR. There should NEVER be laws against what you can or can not say.
Dude, you're clueless.
I have a severe congenital hearing loss and it's really amazing how parents don't really understand the long term consequences of poor hearing protection.
Just as in almost all other health matters, the more exposure to loud noises when young, the more likely a child is to end up with a hearing loss as he ages. Some parents do insist on hearing protection when using firearms, but I'm sure there are a lot that don't. Shooting guns without hearing protection is like taking a five year old to a Nascar race. Very, very irresponsible simply based on the noise level.
I'm sure Dr Choi was speaking of the danger of firearms being discharged by and around children with a lack of supervision, but your tunnel vision when it comes to the health and safety of children is appalling.
But again, the most important part: If you dont want your doctor "politicing" you, GO TO A NEW DOCTOR. There should NEVER be laws against what you can or can not say.
Dude, you're clueless.
I have a severe congenital hearing loss and it's really amazing how parents don't really understand the long term consequences of poor hearing protection.
Just as in almost all other health matters, the more exposure to loud noises when young, the more likely a child is to end up with a hearing loss as he ages. Some parents do insist on hearing protection when using firearms, but I'm sure there are a lot that don't. Shooting guns without hearing protection is like taking a five year old to a Nascar race. Very, very irresponsible simply based on the noise level.
I'm sure Dr Choi was speaking of the danger of firearms being discharged by and around children with a lack of supervision, but your tunnel vision when it comes to the health and safety of children is appalling.
darh
Sep 12, 08:03 AM
Film content from Fox and Dreamworks?!
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
yeah! Also in the Netherlands FWIW
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
yeah! Also in the Netherlands FWIW
Balli
Sep 12, 02:51 AM
10am Cupertino (west coast US) time. Just over 9 hours to go.
That's 7pm here in the UK... Just when I get home from work! :)
Are any sites offering live feeds, etc?
That's 7pm here in the UK... Just when I get home from work! :)
Are any sites offering live feeds, etc?
Lacero
Sep 8, 12:34 PM
Why does everyone REFUSE to Blame this ignorant Mayor?Hmm... that's a toughie. Let me see. Because everyone REALIZES he isn't responsible!!
ctdonath
Oct 1, 02:06 PM
I live in one of fairly many Grade II Listed (http://www.heritage.co.uk/apavilions/glstb.html) buildings in the United Kingdom, much older but not quite as large as old Steve's, and there is no surprise when purchasing such a building that you are significantly restricted in what you can do to it.
England has a very long history of common people being subject to the will & whim of the rich & powerful & connected.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
What is it about the past that you don't like, Jobs?
How it gets in the way of the present & future.
When people stop shelling out good money, time & resources of their own (not confiscated-at-gunpoint taxpayer funds) for old things, maybe it's time to stop preserving what people don't actually want and start replacing it. Remember, Apple does not maintain a "museum of past Apple products" because those products no longer sold are, by current standards, failures - they may have been great then, but nobody wants to put up their own money for them today.
Yes, there is a valid argument and sociopolitical expenditure to preserve things which may not be of sustained current value. Question is where to draw the line. AFAIK, nobody actually wanted that house, and few are truly enamored by Spanish Revival architecture to a degree worth the substantial cost of preservation of such an example, and fewer still are truly enamored by the decedent who built it. The argument, IMHO, centers more around those wanting to either criticize Jobs at any opportunity, or whose relevance hinges on ability to find old homes they can spin as "historic".
Suitable acreage is costly in that region. The cost of preserving the "interesting creation" far exceeds the cost of replacing it with another interesting creation; as none are interested in putting up the money to preserve the former, those interested in putting up the money to create the latter win.
And yes, the old gives way to the new. Physical things are not important of themselves. It's not about wanton destruction for sake of destruction, it's about moving forward and removing obstacles thereto.
England has a very long history of common people being subject to the will & whim of the rich & powerful & connected.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
What is it about the past that you don't like, Jobs?
How it gets in the way of the present & future.
When people stop shelling out good money, time & resources of their own (not confiscated-at-gunpoint taxpayer funds) for old things, maybe it's time to stop preserving what people don't actually want and start replacing it. Remember, Apple does not maintain a "museum of past Apple products" because those products no longer sold are, by current standards, failures - they may have been great then, but nobody wants to put up their own money for them today.
Yes, there is a valid argument and sociopolitical expenditure to preserve things which may not be of sustained current value. Question is where to draw the line. AFAIK, nobody actually wanted that house, and few are truly enamored by Spanish Revival architecture to a degree worth the substantial cost of preservation of such an example, and fewer still are truly enamored by the decedent who built it. The argument, IMHO, centers more around those wanting to either criticize Jobs at any opportunity, or whose relevance hinges on ability to find old homes they can spin as "historic".
Suitable acreage is costly in that region. The cost of preserving the "interesting creation" far exceeds the cost of replacing it with another interesting creation; as none are interested in putting up the money to preserve the former, those interested in putting up the money to create the latter win.
And yes, the old gives way to the new. Physical things are not important of themselves. It's not about wanton destruction for sake of destruction, it's about moving forward and removing obstacles thereto.
bluebomberman
Oct 2, 05:08 PM
...the more I think about it, the more I don't see why iTunes wouldn't play the compatible Fairplay songs. Apple can't make any major changes to the existing DRM in files to break compatible Fairplay files.... since they would have then have to reencode all of those files sitting on people's hard drives.
arn
Maybe Apple could do a Fairplay "freeze" where all Fairplay v2 media purchased after a certain date is deemed invalid by iPod + iTunes.
Not that Apple would automatically do such a thing...way I see it, we're all heading towards murky waters as crappy tech companies (Real, Microsoft, etc.) try to jam their way into Apple's iPod + iTunes ecosphere.
Reacent Post
arn
Maybe Apple could do a Fairplay "freeze" where all Fairplay v2 media purchased after a certain date is deemed invalid by iPod + iTunes.
Not that Apple would automatically do such a thing...way I see it, we're all heading towards murky waters as crappy tech companies (Real, Microsoft, etc.) try to jam their way into Apple's iPod + iTunes ecosphere.
0 comments:
Post a Comment