doodosh
Sep 16, 04:36 PM
Looks like Kamino (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/15249612/)
great. thank you
great. thank you
McGiord
Apr 10, 01:27 PM
Kids continue having fun...time to file my taxes.
And I do expect my return to be accurate like the right answer.
:rolleyes:
And I do expect my return to be accurate like the right answer.
:rolleyes:
Amazing Iceman
Apr 25, 10:04 AM
Apple could do themselves a lot of favours if they came out with an offical statement, explaining what iOS does in regards of user tracking ( i.e, location database ). Some 1 line email response fired off by SJ doesn't do much good.
Once again, Apple fall down in terms of customer relations / communications. If Apple handled this correctly then all the fuss could go away in a couple days.
It's just a simple answer to a dumb question.
Once again, Apple fall down in terms of customer relations / communications. If Apple handled this correctly then all the fuss could go away in a couple days.
It's just a simple answer to a dumb question.
ellsworth
Apr 5, 01:48 PM
"maintain their good relationship with Apple,"
Really?
Toyota sells cars not electronic/computer/idevices.
What'ever. Glad I bought a Subaru :)
(Yes, I know Toyota has a large stake in Subaru)
Really?
Toyota sells cars not electronic/computer/idevices.
What'ever. Glad I bought a Subaru :)
(Yes, I know Toyota has a large stake in Subaru)
yellowballoon
Mar 29, 12:27 PM
Come on Apple you can do it ..
Having bought a good chunk of my media library of iTunes I would love to back that up into the cloud .. wirelessly syncing my phone would be heaven.
Hopeing Apple has something good up their sleeves.
T.
LOL..yeah Windows Phone beat them to the wireless syncing..what a joke Apple!
Having bought a good chunk of my media library of iTunes I would love to back that up into the cloud .. wirelessly syncing my phone would be heaven.
Hopeing Apple has something good up their sleeves.
T.
LOL..yeah Windows Phone beat them to the wireless syncing..what a joke Apple!
EricNau
May 3, 09:48 PM
I don't have the time to write an exhaustive response to this magnum opus, but I'm going to leave with a few concluding points:
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
Jeevs bost
Jul 31, 06:12 AM
Sorry to be a killjoy but I know for a fact that if this photographer did do any work for Apple he would of had to of signed a non disclosure agreement and as such would of been 100% bound to it, (unless of course he never wanted to work again and get his ass sued off). I know because I am a digital illustrator ( http://www.anthony-robinson.com ) sorry couldn't resist! :D and if I ever do any ad work this is standard practice.
I'm not denying that Apple might be developing a phone but for sure, this guy knows nothing about it.
I'm not denying that Apple might be developing a phone but for sure, this guy knows nothing about it.
peterdevries
Mar 28, 11:10 AM
This better not happen. Seriously.
Or else what?
Or else what?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 7, 07:36 PM
After some serious thinking I have come to the conclusion that $5K for a Rev. A is a bit too much of a gamble for me, especially considering the "normal" expected Rev. A snags. I wish Apple had better quality control.
However, I might get a Rev. A MP if early adaptors doesn't report too much of glitches.
However, I might get a Rev. A MP if early adaptors doesn't report too much of glitches.
heisetax
Aug 4, 09:57 AM
I have been wondering the same thing. No matter how good the news is, there are still a bunch of negative votes. It just re-inforces my belief there is an organized effort to discredit Apple on this site. If it was just individuals, I would wonder why waste time on an Apple website if you did not like Apple? It makes no sense in that scenario. I do believe the PC establishment is worried about the possibility of Apple gaining more of a foothold in corporate America.
No matter how good someone will always be negative, but also no matter how bad someone will be positive. That's just the way life is. This has nothing to do with having those that are anti-Mac or pro-Mac. People just don't agree on anything.
Maybe this person santed to see the core 2 duo in a PowerMac/Intel Mac Pro unit. Maybe he wanted an iPod shuffle with a core 2 duo in it. Maybe that would be just to say that he had the smallest core 2 duo computers or the most over processed iPods?
Bill the TaxMan
No matter how good someone will always be negative, but also no matter how bad someone will be positive. That's just the way life is. This has nothing to do with having those that are anti-Mac or pro-Mac. People just don't agree on anything.
Maybe this person santed to see the core 2 duo in a PowerMac/Intel Mac Pro unit. Maybe he wanted an iPod shuffle with a core 2 duo in it. Maybe that would be just to say that he had the smallest core 2 duo computers or the most over processed iPods?
Bill the TaxMan
fxtech
Mar 30, 06:50 AM
WOW... what a perfect specimen you are not
Got your sarcasm blinders on?
Got your sarcasm blinders on?
SandynJosh
Apr 23, 09:41 PM
I will be honest and truthful and say for a mobile device on batteries, I'm very impressed as what the iPhone and iPad can do gaming wise.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
Benjy91
May 6, 07:58 AM
GL on getting people to start making ARM binaries for windows 8 which only runs on tablets who happen to be extremely unsuccessful. If Microsoft makes an ARM version of windows 8 for tablets only, then windows-based tablets will be even deader than they are already.
On a side note: All current ARM processers are designed for very compact and tight spaces where power efficiency is THE most important thing. Regular laptop/desktop CPUs are not, to the same extent anyway. ARM has yet to show us what it can deliver in that area, so who knows. We'll just have to wait and see.
Windows is making a version of Windows that works on ARM and the regular processors, so ALL the software works for it. They wont be separate versions.
On a side note: All current ARM processers are designed for very compact and tight spaces where power efficiency is THE most important thing. Regular laptop/desktop CPUs are not, to the same extent anyway. ARM has yet to show us what it can deliver in that area, so who knows. We'll just have to wait and see.
Windows is making a version of Windows that works on ARM and the regular processors, so ALL the software works for it. They wont be separate versions.
asdf542
Mar 30, 05:59 PM
Enjoy your brand new 129$ Mac OS X latest revision (the most advanced, the most unique, the most... bla bla bla bla...) carrying more than XXX features (aka... just making the Mac OS X experience more iOS-alike so you get used to AppStore since soon you'll have to go through this method of delivery as there won't be any other one, because Mr. Jobs wants more money...)
Yep... I think that 129$ sounds quite ok, for nothing :D
Though I'm not surprise... there's nothing shocking that they can implement. This "update" is aimed at training people into AppStore (aka money)... and they even charge for it :D
I lol'd. No matter what people will complain. When Snow Leopard was released people wanted more UI changes and more features. Now when Lion is released all people want is under the hood improvements. SMH
Yep... I think that 129$ sounds quite ok, for nothing :D
Though I'm not surprise... there's nothing shocking that they can implement. This "update" is aimed at training people into AppStore (aka money)... and they even charge for it :D
I lol'd. No matter what people will complain. When Snow Leopard was released people wanted more UI changes and more features. Now when Lion is released all people want is under the hood improvements. SMH
Ruhruh
Apr 26, 02:59 PM
Can someone post the updated chart on which OS is making more profit, not only for the company behind the OS, but for developers? :rolleyes:
As much as I want Android to succeed, being a google fan, the OS along with the app store(s) and apps are not on the same level as iOS.
As a consumer, I could careless if Android has 99% of the market, I want the best ecosystem.
Nokia/Symbian dominated the phone market, at least worldwide, they are doing what now? As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Apple has been doing just fine for the last 10 years or so sticking to its devoted followers, they are not going to start releases 10 iPhone versions to compete to save their market share. But I'm going to guess they will continue to pull in the most cash.
As much as I want Android to succeed, being a google fan, the OS along with the app store(s) and apps are not on the same level as iOS.
As a consumer, I could careless if Android has 99% of the market, I want the best ecosystem.
Nokia/Symbian dominated the phone market, at least worldwide, they are doing what now? As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Apple has been doing just fine for the last 10 years or so sticking to its devoted followers, they are not going to start releases 10 iPhone versions to compete to save their market share. But I'm going to guess they will continue to pull in the most cash.
fishmoose
Apr 5, 01:20 PM
I don't see how Apple asking Toyota to take the theme down can be considered controlling or dominant by Apple? It's a question they could have said no. Unsurprisingly their relationship with Apple is more important than an ugly theme made with 30 minutes of Photoshop...
bella92108
Apr 5, 01:47 PM
2010 - Apple Loses #1 Mobile OS spot to Android OS
2011 - Apple pisses off their JB customers and loses 10% more
2012 - Apple loses #2 and #3 spot to Windows Mobile & HP OS
Within 12 months Apple will own the same market share as their computers, 9% ... and it'll have been the same story: rose to glory, abuse the customer and business partners, people get sick of the rulebook and leave for more open pastures.
This is all deja vu from the 80s repeating itself, wow.
I dumped iPhone at xmas, now I'll likely dump iPad 2 if this trend continues. If they really push the washington involvement to stop jailbreaking, I'll get rid of my 3 iMac\MB Air\MB Pro... I don't support companies who attack me. They're here because of me, not the opposite. If they don't get that, adios.
2011 - Apple pisses off their JB customers and loses 10% more
2012 - Apple loses #2 and #3 spot to Windows Mobile & HP OS
Within 12 months Apple will own the same market share as their computers, 9% ... and it'll have been the same story: rose to glory, abuse the customer and business partners, people get sick of the rulebook and leave for more open pastures.
This is all deja vu from the 80s repeating itself, wow.
I dumped iPhone at xmas, now I'll likely dump iPad 2 if this trend continues. If they really push the washington involvement to stop jailbreaking, I'll get rid of my 3 iMac\MB Air\MB Pro... I don't support companies who attack me. They're here because of me, not the opposite. If they don't get that, adios.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 4, 01:42 PM
1. If you check Apple's knowledge database or the manual that come with MBP, it actually says not to put this laptop on top of your lap, ....
I have a 4 year old Toshiba that runs (under moderate load) fairly cool. It also warned against using in lap.
I think all "laptops" will come with that warning now. It is just an attempt to prevent lawsuits.
Plus, guys, it is bad for your...ummm....baby makers...they are on the outside for a reason.
I have a 4 year old Toshiba that runs (under moderate load) fairly cool. It also warned against using in lap.
I think all "laptops" will come with that warning now. It is just an attempt to prevent lawsuits.
Plus, guys, it is bad for your...ummm....baby makers...they are on the outside for a reason.
HiVolt
Apr 21, 05:22 PM
It would be nice. As I'm forced to use a Mac Pro with no redundancy at work to run some Mac specific software. At least my rack is wide enough, I slide in thru the side and on a shelf.
A 3U-4U Mac Pro with optional redundant PSU and hardware RAID5 would be great. We would certainly buy one at work.
A 3U-4U Mac Pro with optional redundant PSU and hardware RAID5 would be great. We would certainly buy one at work.
citizenzen
Apr 14, 12:32 PM
Our financial situation is recognized by some as a great threat.
Maybe we can get the military to invade it. ;)
Maybe we can get the military to invade it. ;)
ECUpirate44
Apr 9, 08:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEMDAS#Mnemonics
(Not saying this is your case McGiord)
I am.
(Not saying this is your case McGiord)
I am.
Hattig
Mar 28, 10:48 AM
It doesn't make sense that there won't be a new iPhone this year.
I can understand Apple moving the introductory event away from a software developer conference.
But they have their new A5 chip, they need to amortise manufacturing costs across multiple product lines. They're not going to wait another year before introducing an iPhone 5 around this chip. Other changes may be minimal.
In addition the competition isn't standing still - Android, WebOS, WM7, BlackBerry, etc - they're all releasing new devices all the time. They're dual-core, better performance GPUs, more RAM - i.e., overtaking the iPhone 4 in terms of hardware (but not software, but it's improving all the time).
So therefore there will be an iPhone 5 this year. Maybe later than normal, maybe earlier. It might not be a major change - A5, maybe more storage, aluminium back. It's the software that Apple likes highlighting, so they might sync with iOS 5 if they want a big release event.
I can understand Apple moving the introductory event away from a software developer conference.
But they have their new A5 chip, they need to amortise manufacturing costs across multiple product lines. They're not going to wait another year before introducing an iPhone 5 around this chip. Other changes may be minimal.
In addition the competition isn't standing still - Android, WebOS, WM7, BlackBerry, etc - they're all releasing new devices all the time. They're dual-core, better performance GPUs, more RAM - i.e., overtaking the iPhone 4 in terms of hardware (but not software, but it's improving all the time).
So therefore there will be an iPhone 5 this year. Maybe later than normal, maybe earlier. It might not be a major change - A5, maybe more storage, aluminium back. It's the software that Apple likes highlighting, so they might sync with iOS 5 if they want a big release event.
milozauckerman
Jul 21, 11:05 PM
Apple can't not update at least the top-end MacBooks. Dell & Co. will be putting Core 2 in comparably priced machines - $1299/1499 - as the price breaks down similarly to Core Duo chips.
Apple doesn't want switchers going "hmmm, I can get a MacBook for <x> or a Dell with a better newer processor for the same."
Apple doesn't want switchers going "hmmm, I can get a MacBook for <x> or a Dell with a better newer processor for the same."
thelookingglass
Mar 30, 09:15 AM
I like the competition, and the cloud concept is definitely promising, but I don't think this is a solution I want. Call me pessimistic, but I don't want to rely on another entity for access to my own information. I don't want to store all my music and movies "in the cloud" and hope there is no complications. Rather, what I want is to be able to access my home computer via the cloud, but if all else fails, it's still saved on my home computer, not some remote server I can't access
The ironic thing is your data is probably safer in the cloud (where there is adequate redundancy in multiple geographic locations) than just simply sitting on your home computer.
The ironic thing is your data is probably safer in the cloud (where there is adequate redundancy in multiple geographic locations) than just simply sitting on your home computer.
