anotherarunan
Jan 15, 01:25 PM
But eventually the specs will get better and better for either the same price point or reduced price points over the course of time... Also, it looks like no Apple Remote and Front Row for the MBAir??
the apple remote is an optional extra! like the superdrive, theres an optional extra ethernet USB adapter. (for the MBA single USB port!)
just wait for the apple USB hub announcement to come in the summer! :D
the apple remote is an optional extra! like the superdrive, theres an optional extra ethernet USB adapter. (for the MBA single USB port!)
just wait for the apple USB hub announcement to come in the summer! :D
Northgrove
May 3, 02:31 PM
Here's my take on it.
One of the carriers source of income is data charges. Within that category of data sales is:
1) Data used via smartphone for web access.
2) Data used via tethering your phone & laptop.
3) Data used via a laptop air card bought from the carrier.
When you use method 2 illegally, the carrier loses out on that data sale. It's been like this for years, yet not been a problem as large as it is now.
Yes, hmm, I think where this arguments ends is that they have set their prices so that they don't actually make a profit from their data charges alone, and need to somehow "compensate" for this by creating artificial fees. I guess the fierce competition drives them there. What I'm saying is just that I think charging for the way you use data isn't very logical, but charging for how much data you use is. Hm, if that made any sense. :)
One of the carriers source of income is data charges. Within that category of data sales is:
1) Data used via smartphone for web access.
2) Data used via tethering your phone & laptop.
3) Data used via a laptop air card bought from the carrier.
When you use method 2 illegally, the carrier loses out on that data sale. It's been like this for years, yet not been a problem as large as it is now.
Yes, hmm, I think where this arguments ends is that they have set their prices so that they don't actually make a profit from their data charges alone, and need to somehow "compensate" for this by creating artificial fees. I guess the fierce competition drives them there. What I'm saying is just that I think charging for the way you use data isn't very logical, but charging for how much data you use is. Hm, if that made any sense. :)
krestfallen
Oct 17, 09:17 AM
the ps3 is sony's method to push the blu-ray format.
but the ps3 is delayed since march 2007 in europe and the number of units at launch is not impressive. so blu-ray won't be seen in many europe's living rooms any time soon i think.
so perhaps this could be one hint that hd-dvd could win after all.
edit: i think it's sad because i think blu-ray is the superior format. but look at sony. the hole blu-ray, ps3 and the notebook-akku thing is a whole disaster.
blu-ray is better, theoretically. but it still seem to be beta more or less like everything sony is putting on the market these days.
but the ps3 is delayed since march 2007 in europe and the number of units at launch is not impressive. so blu-ray won't be seen in many europe's living rooms any time soon i think.
so perhaps this could be one hint that hd-dvd could win after all.
edit: i think it's sad because i think blu-ray is the superior format. but look at sony. the hole blu-ray, ps3 and the notebook-akku thing is a whole disaster.
blu-ray is better, theoretically. but it still seem to be beta more or less like everything sony is putting on the market these days.
darkplanets
Apr 17, 04:18 PM
What security problem?
You know what kills more Americans than terrorism every year? Peanut allergies. Swimming pools. Deer running in front of cars.
Pat downs, body scanners, and TSA in generally are about "security theater." The government puts on a big show so the poor little sheep who are afraid of the big bad muslim wolves feel better.
So how about we all stop letting politicians play on our fears, stop feeding money to the contractors who design useless crap like body scanners and stop giving up constitutional rights all in the name of preventing a "danger" that's significantly less likely to kill you than a lightning strike.
That's exactly my point -- if you profile, not only do you not need all that equipment, but security could arguable be better than the current system which has well documented relapses and issues associated with it.
You know what kills more Americans than terrorism every year? Peanut allergies. Swimming pools. Deer running in front of cars.
Pat downs, body scanners, and TSA in generally are about "security theater." The government puts on a big show so the poor little sheep who are afraid of the big bad muslim wolves feel better.
So how about we all stop letting politicians play on our fears, stop feeding money to the contractors who design useless crap like body scanners and stop giving up constitutional rights all in the name of preventing a "danger" that's significantly less likely to kill you than a lightning strike.
That's exactly my point -- if you profile, not only do you not need all that equipment, but security could arguable be better than the current system which has well documented relapses and issues associated with it.
more...
LimeiBook86
Apr 29, 01:13 PM
The power of Mac OS X. The magic of iPad.
Oh god...
Yeah that doesn't sit too well with me either. But as long as there are a good set of nice new features without much of the iPad-ness mucking it up I'll be pleased. I hope to see more of Lion soon, the more features the better! :D
Oh god...
Yeah that doesn't sit too well with me either. But as long as there are a good set of nice new features without much of the iPad-ness mucking it up I'll be pleased. I hope to see more of Lion soon, the more features the better! :D
JohnnyQuest
Mar 17, 10:36 AM
MacRumours also known as the moral police! lmao Cracks me up especially after all the post I have read in the past about people receiving extra computers in the mail by accident from apple!!! And if I was a troll and made this whole thing up completely, I have succeeded for sure, for laughing at all of the post in this stupid thread it has ruffled some nerves of the people at home wishing they had an Ipad, insted of posting from their Acer Netbook. This place is a joke
How dull are you? Yep, I'm sure most people here are just typing away on their Dell's!
Delusional much? You actually think you're better in some way for this whole scheme. Wow.
PS- typed on my iPad :rolleyes:
How dull are you? Yep, I'm sure most people here are just typing away on their Dell's!
Delusional much? You actually think you're better in some way for this whole scheme. Wow.
PS- typed on my iPad :rolleyes:
more...
saxamoophone
Apr 29, 04:41 PM
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 will ipad3 or ipad4 will be running MAC OS X??
So will ipad3 or ipad4 will be running MAC OS X??
AppliedVisual
Oct 18, 07:28 PM
With the new codecs Sony can barely justify 50GB discs for movie distribution. How in the world can you justify 300GB discs?
That's easy... The next video format, which is already forming alliances within the industry. Currently known as SuperHD or Super Hi-Vision with 4K and 8K resolutions.
Or... We can put all 6 Star Wars films on a single disc in full 1080P glory.
But seriously, the new codecs aren't that magical and even with VC1 or H.264, it's pretty easy to run into a barrier with a 25 to 30 GB disc size. Sony shouldn't have any troubles with fitting films at full quality on a 50GB disc. Also keep in mind that the layer substrate within BluRay is a lot thinner than DVD/HD-DVD discs and they claim that a disc could potentially hold up to 12 layers... Sony has done lab tests and industry demonstrations with prototype 4-layer discs, but the exposure has been very minimal.
Also Holographic storage is going to be the next form of optical media, almost surely anyway unless something incredible comes out of nowhere. It has a lot of room to grow as a format as well and as capacities increase, we will begin to move from compressed video to uncompressed and/or lossless codecs. So when the 3.6TB holographic storage media hits, we'll be able to put full HD res 1080P24, uncompressed 32bit color transfers of features plus full uncompressed 8 channel audio on a single disc with room to spare.
HVD or something like it would be keen for an Ultra HD format or a 4k format in 10-15yrs but right now it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist for movie playback.
Yep, but I think that day will be here quicker than 10-15 years. While there will be a move to continue to push HD resolutions higher as I mentioned. I think we're going to see an even bigger push to max-out the quality of the image resolution we can deal with now. Current HDTV sets are shipping with the ability to display a full 1080p uncompressed signal. While BluRay and HD-DVD do a fair job of using this ability there's still noticeable compression artifacting and color limitations, black crush, etc.. Just imagine what would be possible with an uncompressed or lossless codec.
That's easy... The next video format, which is already forming alliances within the industry. Currently known as SuperHD or Super Hi-Vision with 4K and 8K resolutions.
Or... We can put all 6 Star Wars films on a single disc in full 1080P glory.
But seriously, the new codecs aren't that magical and even with VC1 or H.264, it's pretty easy to run into a barrier with a 25 to 30 GB disc size. Sony shouldn't have any troubles with fitting films at full quality on a 50GB disc. Also keep in mind that the layer substrate within BluRay is a lot thinner than DVD/HD-DVD discs and they claim that a disc could potentially hold up to 12 layers... Sony has done lab tests and industry demonstrations with prototype 4-layer discs, but the exposure has been very minimal.
Also Holographic storage is going to be the next form of optical media, almost surely anyway unless something incredible comes out of nowhere. It has a lot of room to grow as a format as well and as capacities increase, we will begin to move from compressed video to uncompressed and/or lossless codecs. So when the 3.6TB holographic storage media hits, we'll be able to put full HD res 1080P24, uncompressed 32bit color transfers of features plus full uncompressed 8 channel audio on a single disc with room to spare.
HVD or something like it would be keen for an Ultra HD format or a 4k format in 10-15yrs but right now it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist for movie playback.
Yep, but I think that day will be here quicker than 10-15 years. While there will be a move to continue to push HD resolutions higher as I mentioned. I think we're going to see an even bigger push to max-out the quality of the image resolution we can deal with now. Current HDTV sets are shipping with the ability to display a full 1080p uncompressed signal. While BluRay and HD-DVD do a fair job of using this ability there's still noticeable compression artifacting and color limitations, black crush, etc.. Just imagine what would be possible with an uncompressed or lossless codec.
more...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
tribalogical
Nov 23, 05:00 PM
It's interesting that the email ad I received from Apple sort of implies savings across the board (since they show silhouetted images of virtually everything in their product line).
"one day shopping event", "Joy to the wallet", and images of ipods, macs, mice, etc.... the works, basically.
I'll be well disappointed if there are no discounts to the Mac Pro, since it too is among that group of images... ;)
That said, I bought my G5 at a similar event early last year, and used a scratch-off ticket I got at the door giving me 10% off my purchases that day... perhaps this year will offer something like that?
And, I just got lucky, I guess.......
peace,
tribalogical
"one day shopping event", "Joy to the wallet", and images of ipods, macs, mice, etc.... the works, basically.
I'll be well disappointed if there are no discounts to the Mac Pro, since it too is among that group of images... ;)
That said, I bought my G5 at a similar event early last year, and used a scratch-off ticket I got at the door giving me 10% off my purchases that day... perhaps this year will offer something like that?
And, I just got lucky, I guess.......
peace,
tribalogical
more...
maclaptop
Apr 26, 08:23 AM
Yeah, it's just a big enough change that a new case would have to be bought :rolleyes:
Only if you want to use it as a phone :)
Only if you want to use it as a phone :)
macteo
Apr 29, 03:55 PM
Yeah, I preferred the iOS scrollbars, and the slider buttons.
Why Apple did it?
Why Apple did it?
more...
Matt-M
Apr 15, 02:26 PM
LOL at the perspective on the text in the 3rd photo.
Actually, shooting up close with a wide-angle lens will give you exactly that distortion. Here is a photo I just took of a REAL iPhone with a 17mm lens. Sorry about the fuzziness - handheld and did not use a flash:
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
Actually, shooting up close with a wide-angle lens will give you exactly that distortion. Here is a photo I just took of a REAL iPhone with a 17mm lens. Sorry about the fuzziness - handheld and did not use a flash:
http://www.marulla.com/files/perspective.jpg
So I don't think text in the 3rd photo is skewed. That being said, I agree it's a fake.
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 09:52 AM
iBeard, you're assuming that the only thing a larger screen is good for is movies/tv. With a 4" screen on the pod, you have a larger viewing area for more than movies/tv. You have it for games, pictures, chat(when available), text, better view of album artwork, and so on. It may not be for you because you may only use your pod for music, but you gotta admit there's a huge market for it.
J
It's not just that though, a 4 inch screen that you can move around easily (without scratching the spinning DVD) would be awesome for watching movies. I would even go so far as to say that it could be a larger viewing area than your bigscreen plasma.
J
It's not just that though, a 4 inch screen that you can move around easily (without scratching the spinning DVD) would be awesome for watching movies. I would even go so far as to say that it could be a larger viewing area than your bigscreen plasma.
more...
ThunderSkunk
Apr 29, 06:39 PM
Hm. I hate to say it but I'm preparing to be a little disappointed.
The shading of a button is about the most minor UI change I could think of, compared to the big changes I was expecting. As for the color schema, I thought i'd be glossy black... like imovie, fcp, etc... nice clean, high contrast, classy look, keeps your focus on your content.
But I guess I was expecting some next-generation stuff, like a semi-intelligent contextual version of Finder that'd closer integrate into applications, to put compatible files at your fingertips, & make the OS work with you, instead of be worked by you.
...Integration of cross-OS applications, like auto-syncable iWork, Garageband, iMovie projects, etc... so your content can be worked on seamlessly from one device to another & allow us to focus even more on our content & less on our tools.
an 20 foot voice activated foldable touchscreens and and... i know, i know...
The shading of a button is about the most minor UI change I could think of, compared to the big changes I was expecting. As for the color schema, I thought i'd be glossy black... like imovie, fcp, etc... nice clean, high contrast, classy look, keeps your focus on your content.
But I guess I was expecting some next-generation stuff, like a semi-intelligent contextual version of Finder that'd closer integrate into applications, to put compatible files at your fingertips, & make the OS work with you, instead of be worked by you.
...Integration of cross-OS applications, like auto-syncable iWork, Garageband, iMovie projects, etc... so your content can be worked on seamlessly from one device to another & allow us to focus even more on our content & less on our tools.
an 20 foot voice activated foldable touchscreens and and... i know, i know...
DoFoT9
Jul 13, 09:50 PM
thanks. it's good to be back, but like i said, i'm having serious internet issues here. i'm paying for 12 mb/s, and sometimes i'm getting less than 1! :mad:
dang. well once i get the internet situation under control, i'll be able to contribute more.
farout man, thats BS. is it ADSL?
dang. well once i get the internet situation under control, i'll be able to contribute more.
farout man, thats BS. is it ADSL?
more...
ifjake
Oct 3, 09:37 AM
The way I imagine Apple liscensing/opening up the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system would be for Apple to completely control what the user sees, how the user gets content, even if it doesn't control what the user gets. Like how you can choose which country to set the Music Store to, adding maybe an Amazon.com store to the list, Real.com, etc. But as a "reward" for opening itself up to competition, Apple would recieve a slight liscence fee, an teensy bit of the price of whatever's sold. This way Apple could control the look of the iTMS no matter where it comes from by supplying a template, a "user interface guideline" sort of thing for this new multi-store, and all media from Apple or Amazon or wherever could all happily coexist in iTunes. If the other companies want to sell to players other than the iPod, they can use their own system or work out a similar situation with Microsoft and fair play and such.
I don't really like leaving this in the hands of DVD Jon. Maybe Apple will wait and see what kind of response he gets and then take it from there, but I think Apple and especially iTunes still need to be part of the picture.
Maybe Apple could simply provide an easy "Add to Library" handle in iTunes, even if the stuff comes from some browser based store, you buy it and it goes to iTunes and thus the iPod. The whole multi-store thing is to me the ideal that I'd be willing to let go of.
I don't really like leaving this in the hands of DVD Jon. Maybe Apple will wait and see what kind of response he gets and then take it from there, but I think Apple and especially iTunes still need to be part of the picture.
Maybe Apple could simply provide an easy "Add to Library" handle in iTunes, even if the stuff comes from some browser based store, you buy it and it goes to iTunes and thus the iPod. The whole multi-store thing is to me the ideal that I'd be willing to let go of.
rtdgoldfish
Mar 26, 05:29 PM
Your thinking too much about the worst side of things. Aren't you grateful they didnt steal umm... $10000?
Well, they did steal over $1000 worth of stuff. Thats a big deal in my book when I only make $10,000 a year and that I'm in college. I know what you are saying but its still crappy for someone to even steal $100 worth of stuff from you.
Well, they did steal over $1000 worth of stuff. Thats a big deal in my book when I only make $10,000 a year and that I'm in college. I know what you are saying but its still crappy for someone to even steal $100 worth of stuff from you.
twoodcc
Apr 2, 10:45 PM
well things aren't looking too good. i got here, but the air is broke! it's like 84 degrees in here, at almost midnight! :eek: and i don't have all my systems up either.
MacToddB
Oct 11, 04:21 PM
Pretty funny. One question though: obviously "there's a map for that" is a play-on-words for "there's an app for that." Isn't "there's an app for that" an Apple advertisement? Why take a shot at Apple with a similar phrase when Apple has nothing to do with AT&T's network? It's a clever line in the sense that it mocks another but it seems to miss the target.
First, to most people, AT&T and Apple are joined at the hip. You can't get the iPhone without AT&T, in the U.S., at least officially. Secondly, it's a dig at Apple and maybe designed to pressure them into breaking the exclusivity deal to make their product look better.
First, to most people, AT&T and Apple are joined at the hip. You can't get the iPhone without AT&T, in the U.S., at least officially. Secondly, it's a dig at Apple and maybe designed to pressure them into breaking the exclusivity deal to make their product look better.
Benjy91
Apr 8, 03:11 PM
+1. Hopefully Lion will be worth the added system requirements.
Anyways, he features I've heard that are to new to Windows 8 so far is:
Anyways, he features I've heard that are to new to Windows 8 so far is:
skunk
Apr 21, 12:22 PM
It's only because the page is changing so quickly and the vote count you see may not be accurate at the time you place your vote but your vote is included and the vote count refreshed after you make a vote.Not the case, as I can reverse it at will.
leekohler
Mar 4, 02:11 PM
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
Oh- incredible, isn't it? Because as we've seen in the past, big business will indeed do the opposite of what he claims. If permitted, they will indeed take wealth at the expense of their workers. The evidence is all over the world.
Oh- incredible, isn't it? Because as we've seen in the past, big business will indeed do the opposite of what he claims. If permitted, they will indeed take wealth at the expense of their workers. The evidence is all over the world.
lordonuthin
Apr 5, 05:24 PM
2 months ago it was zero degrees f outside in Iowa... cooling wasn't so much of a problem then :p
The 2 systems I moved to the basement seem to be ok and the basement is staying within a tolerable temp range. All of that concrete is keeping the air cool enough for now. I think my folding power bill is higher than I thought it was; like maybe $150-$200 a month. Despite the extra cold winter my heating bill may have been quite low with all of the extra heat from the folding systems. I should have a better idea in a couple of months :eek:
Kind of makes me appreciate the reasons why a data center would go with more cores per system and multiple virtual servers per system to reduce the electric bill.
The 2 systems I moved to the basement seem to be ok and the basement is staying within a tolerable temp range. All of that concrete is keeping the air cool enough for now. I think my folding power bill is higher than I thought it was; like maybe $150-$200 a month. Despite the extra cold winter my heating bill may have been quite low with all of the extra heat from the folding systems. I should have a better idea in a couple of months :eek:
Kind of makes me appreciate the reasons why a data center would go with more cores per system and multiple virtual servers per system to reduce the electric bill.
