MacBoobsPro
Sep 19, 03:02 PM
I think we all knew it was gonna work (for Apple). Its just enticing the studios thats the hard part. As good as this news is its not likely to appear outside the US for a LONG time... heck we still dont get TV shows! :rolleyes:
neuropsychguy
May 3, 11:55 AM
The trackpad option is awesome. Every bundled Apple mouse I've gotten for the past 15 years has gone straight in the trash. The only good mouse Apple ever made was the ADB II. At least now I get a free trackpad to play with! Cool!
I'd love to have a trackpad but I do really like the Magic Mouse. It's not super ergonomic, of course, but I like it more than most other traditional mice.
I'd love to have a trackpad but I do really like the Magic Mouse. It's not super ergonomic, of course, but I like it more than most other traditional mice.
spicyapple
Sep 19, 03:52 PM
Ah, yes Casshan you are right. :) More reasons to stick with hard-copy DVDs.
homsar
Mar 29, 11:11 AM
I call (early) April Fool's joke. The figures don't make any sense, and they're being given by Llamas.
xli_ne
Sep 12, 03:25 PM
Well, obviously YOU wouldn't but not everyone has an extra $100.00 bucks or feels that the extra storage is worth the cost.
i'm sorry but the 30G iPod has a stupid price. If someone is that tight and has to get an iPod, they would probably buy used.
i'm sorry but the 30G iPod has a stupid price. If someone is that tight and has to get an iPod, they would probably buy used.
iRun26.2
Apr 26, 01:08 PM
A family member has the new MBP 13" and I think it has a nice display. I have no idea how it is for gaming, but pics and videos look quite nice, IMHO. I've been of the opinion that Apple uses a better quality display panel than the other manufacturers, not necessarily stronger graphics performance but overall better looking.
I have always found that the Apple displays are a lot brighter than other brands. Tome, the quality of the display is one of the most important key points of a new model.
If they were to make any significant improvement in the 11.6" MBA display (higher resolution, brighter screen, higher contrast, move to IPS technology) I think I would consider upgrading immediately.
I have always found that the Apple displays are a lot brighter than other brands. Tome, the quality of the display is one of the most important key points of a new model.
If they were to make any significant improvement in the 11.6" MBA display (higher resolution, brighter screen, higher contrast, move to IPS technology) I think I would consider upgrading immediately.
MacGeek7
Mar 24, 04:03 PM
I have a imac late 2009 and Im very very happy with it. I dont need a bigger screen, I dont need more resolution, I dont need more disk space, I dont need thunderbolt or USB 3, I dont need Lion, I dont need more RAM, I dont need better graphics...
I dont plan on buying a new imac until they come with USB 3 and thunderbolt and SSD inside and, who knows, bluray...
Right now theres just absolutely no need to change. Only option I want is the next macbook air with core i3, since I dont have a laptop and I need one. Ill have to wait until November or so. It wouldnt be smart to buy it now since the next update sure with have core i3 and thunderbolt and 4GB RAM.
I would be shocked if USB 3 came to the Mac. Jobs has already said We don�t see USB 3 taking off at this time. No support from Intel, for example. I see Thunderbolt taking the place of USB altogether. Same with blu-ray, internet downloads are already edging away at the blu-ray market.
http://www.9to5mac.com/32948/jobs-no-usb-3-at-this-time/
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/30/steve-jobs-suggests-blu-ray-not-coming-to-mac-anytime-soon/
I dont plan on buying a new imac until they come with USB 3 and thunderbolt and SSD inside and, who knows, bluray...
Right now theres just absolutely no need to change. Only option I want is the next macbook air with core i3, since I dont have a laptop and I need one. Ill have to wait until November or so. It wouldnt be smart to buy it now since the next update sure with have core i3 and thunderbolt and 4GB RAM.
I would be shocked if USB 3 came to the Mac. Jobs has already said We don�t see USB 3 taking off at this time. No support from Intel, for example. I see Thunderbolt taking the place of USB altogether. Same with blu-ray, internet downloads are already edging away at the blu-ray market.
http://www.9to5mac.com/32948/jobs-no-usb-3-at-this-time/
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/30/steve-jobs-suggests-blu-ray-not-coming-to-mac-anytime-soon/
LaMerVipere
Sep 12, 03:36 PM
*fingers still crossed for a software update for current 5G iPod owners to bring 'em up to speed with all the new features* :rolleyes:
toddybody
May 3, 11:04 AM
Very, Very cool move to allow a swap for the track pad instead of the magic mouse. +1 Apple.
The magic mouse is a total POS IMHO.
Razer Mouse + iMac FTW
The magic mouse is a total POS IMHO.
Razer Mouse + iMac FTW
wildmac
Sep 10, 12:05 PM
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
But that underwhelming feeling can be a good feeling. You know you are working on the latest hardware.
I expect to see a speed-bump in the next 5-6 months for the MacPro, but nothing else.
But that underwhelming feeling can be a good feeling. You know you are working on the latest hardware.
I expect to see a speed-bump in the next 5-6 months for the MacPro, but nothing else.
yg17
Apr 25, 07:54 AM
"I'm 16 and I'm an awesome driver" is BS. THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6UCv4etyk) is what I think of when I think of awesome 16-year-old drivers flying down an interstate thinking they own the road. And the driver of this car was a teen.
But Don would never do that, he is an experienced driver for a 16 year old. And he was only doing 90, not 100. Big difference. There would barely be any damage if he hit a bridge at 90 - nothing that wouldn't buff out with a bit of polish and some elbow grease. Not that he'd ever have to worry about that, because Don is such an awesome driver, he'd never hit the bridge.
But Don would never do that, he is an experienced driver for a 16 year old. And he was only doing 90, not 100. Big difference. There would barely be any damage if he hit a bridge at 90 - nothing that wouldn't buff out with a bit of polish and some elbow grease. Not that he'd ever have to worry about that, because Don is such an awesome driver, he'd never hit the bridge.
nlr
Apr 30, 04:59 PM
will we be able to play crysis on bootcamp with the new graphic cards?
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
LightSpeed1
Apr 24, 10:56 PM
Awesome.
mr.steevo
Apr 20, 09:58 AM
Ask Josh Harris what he thinks of this and he'll tell you we're right on track with losing all anonymity due to technology.
Buckle up.
Buckle up.
LaMerVipere
Sep 12, 02:08 PM
I hope Apple releases an iPod software update so those of us who already own 5th generation iPods can take advantage of all these new features.
Yebot
Sep 10, 05:37 PM
What time is the Sept. 12th event taking place? Anyone know? I am going to be in school and want to know if I am going to be able to get in on the action live. I doubt it though.:(
10am Pacific time. 1pm our time.
10am Pacific time. 1pm our time.
kildjean
Apr 29, 09:35 AM
If Microsoft ever wants to get back at the top of their game they need to fire Ballmer and bring some new blood to the helm. They are as stagnant as IBM was when Microsoft rose to power.
11thIndian
Apr 25, 01:16 PM
Hilarious to all those people who jumped on the THUNDERBOLT bandwagon. No thunderbolt devices yet and they have the hideous old case design.
:rolleyes:
Yeah... I'm just crying I didn't wait for an update that may or may not come in a year. Damn this blistering speed. Damn it!
:rolleyes:
Yeah... I'm just crying I didn't wait for an update that may or may not come in a year. Damn this blistering speed. Damn it!
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:36 PM
An .exe is an executable, not an application. Some people may have called them applications, but not MS. Never. Until now.
Never? Until now?
Please!
exe's were refered to as applications for over a decade. As has been demonstrated in THIS thread may times already.
Never? Until now?
Please!
exe's were refered to as applications for over a decade. As has been demonstrated in THIS thread may times already.
FSUSem1noles
Sep 26, 03:55 PM
YES! Finally, I reap benefits from being with Cingular!!!! :D
MacRumors
Aug 23, 05:07 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple and Creative have resolved their legal disputes (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/aug/23settlement.html) which started on May 15th of this year when Creative and Apple sued each other (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060519080315.shtml) claiming patent infringement. According to a joint-press release, Apple will pay Creative $100 million USD to settle all outstanding lawsuits.
"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "This settlement resolves all of our differences with Creative, including the five lawsuits currently pending between the companies, and removes the uncertainty and distraction of prolonged litigation."
Apple and Creative have resolved their legal disputes (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/aug/23settlement.html) which started on May 15th of this year when Creative and Apple sued each other (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060519080315.shtml) claiming patent infringement. According to a joint-press release, Apple will pay Creative $100 million USD to settle all outstanding lawsuits.
"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "This settlement resolves all of our differences with Creative, including the five lawsuits currently pending between the companies, and removes the uncertainty and distraction of prolonged litigation."
Tommy Wasabi
Sep 14, 08:38 AM
Apple is NOT going to go thru the effort of putting together a special invite just to intro A2. They would lose street cred (and let's face it - they are getting a little over saturated).
I'm a betting man - it's the new MBP - but ALSO IN A NEW FORMAT - maybe even the slate.
Now "I'd buy that for a dollar"
I'm a betting man - it's the new MBP - but ALSO IN A NEW FORMAT - maybe even the slate.
Now "I'd buy that for a dollar"
dernhelm
Sep 5, 02:22 PM
Now, if it's simply an updated Airport Express that now allows you to stream movies but you still have to use your computer do send the files through (AirTunes) then I'll pass. I really don't think they would do it this way though, or at least I hope not.
Plan on being dissapointed. That's pretty much what they'll release. The device will front-end your television, and might (if you are lucky) support component video or DVI, but most likely just composite video. It will probably have a front-row like interface and a remote that can work with it, but it will be incapable of storing any content. The mac will store the content, this device will simply make it available to a TV in any room in your house. Pair it up with a mac mini, and you have a pretty inexpensive solution for downloading TV or Movie content and watching it on your TV.
Myself, I think this could be VERY cool. But I don't spend a lot of time watching TV. If they do it right, I could cancel my NetFlix subscription, though. It just depends on the amount of content.
Plan on being dissapointed. That's pretty much what they'll release. The device will front-end your television, and might (if you are lucky) support component video or DVI, but most likely just composite video. It will probably have a front-row like interface and a remote that can work with it, but it will be incapable of storing any content. The mac will store the content, this device will simply make it available to a TV in any room in your house. Pair it up with a mac mini, and you have a pretty inexpensive solution for downloading TV or Movie content and watching it on your TV.
Myself, I think this could be VERY cool. But I don't spend a lot of time watching TV. If they do it right, I could cancel my NetFlix subscription, though. It just depends on the amount of content.
0 comments:
Post a Comment