Funkatronic
Jan 28, 08:38 AM
EOS 550D/ T2i
mdriftmeyer
May 3, 08:05 AM
Having gotten used to a 24" panel, it's hard to step down to a 21.5. Obviously, it's nice to step up to the 27", if one has the extra disposable income. The 16GB RAM is a nice reality option, especially if the default were 8GB.
Everything is beautiful on the systems.
Everything is beautiful on the systems.
Prom1
Oct 19, 02:01 AM
Quite a bit here. And this coming from Proud Mac owners, and Apple supporters.
1 > The Intel CPU or platform change is gonna make HUGE strides over to Mac OS X. Multiple OS' on one machine is just pure bliss. I've got 3 ppl at work considering the switch all because of the XEON cpu & the ability to run 3 OS (MS Vista, Linux of their choice, and finally MAC OS X); but their just considering because they'll need to upgrade their hardware regardless.
2> The MacBook Pro is due for a case colour change or revision. Its basically the PowerBook G4's case with an iSight, save for MagLite and few other things. But what will Apple make of the case? Polycarbonate, Magnesium Alloy with carbonfibre chassis? Better heat dissappation?
3> Mac Pro; great case. Its not gonna change anytime soon, and I for one realize its Apple's Monolith machine. Heck if you dont want your G5 PowerMac or Mac Pro I'll be more than gratuitous in receiving it as a hand-me-down.
4> I think this qtr we'll see a slowdown of iPod Nano sales due to the new aluminum enclosure, doesnt have that esthetic appeal to it; but its personal preference.
With MW07 quickly approaching, I think the Mac Pro will get significant sales from those that are waiting, due to recent purchases - cleaning out their old G4 PowerMac closets to make way for new Xeon Core 2 Duo machines.
With Vista awaiting to be released, I really think Apple should align their Marketing campaign to be double sided. Either cheeky to poke fun at lack of innovation and revolution to the Vista OS - but NOT at the user! Remember its actually a benefit that the end user can use the Mac Pro or Mac Book series & iMac to install Vista should the user choose to. Market this as a choice something the end user doesnt get at the office ;) Secondly I think Apple should REALLY push the features, power, security, frequent updates to improve an owners system, ALL as a viable reason to own & use both the Mac & OS X! I thought OS X is supposed to sell the hardware, well damnit Apple ADVERTISE IT!
Bring in the big guns Apple to SHOW consumers, small business', family's etc. Get Software companies to advertise how powerful, efficient and productive their products are. How efficient users are USING the Mac. Come up with a low budget, effective direct perspective of how the Mac OS X is. Appeal to the IT Professional, appeal to the family, appeal to the rebel youth, appeal to the manager of a SOHO business, highlight business partners success that use your hardware to make their success.
1 > The Intel CPU or platform change is gonna make HUGE strides over to Mac OS X. Multiple OS' on one machine is just pure bliss. I've got 3 ppl at work considering the switch all because of the XEON cpu & the ability to run 3 OS (MS Vista, Linux of their choice, and finally MAC OS X); but their just considering because they'll need to upgrade their hardware regardless.
2> The MacBook Pro is due for a case colour change or revision. Its basically the PowerBook G4's case with an iSight, save for MagLite and few other things. But what will Apple make of the case? Polycarbonate, Magnesium Alloy with carbonfibre chassis? Better heat dissappation?
3> Mac Pro; great case. Its not gonna change anytime soon, and I for one realize its Apple's Monolith machine. Heck if you dont want your G5 PowerMac or Mac Pro I'll be more than gratuitous in receiving it as a hand-me-down.
4> I think this qtr we'll see a slowdown of iPod Nano sales due to the new aluminum enclosure, doesnt have that esthetic appeal to it; but its personal preference.
With MW07 quickly approaching, I think the Mac Pro will get significant sales from those that are waiting, due to recent purchases - cleaning out their old G4 PowerMac closets to make way for new Xeon Core 2 Duo machines.
With Vista awaiting to be released, I really think Apple should align their Marketing campaign to be double sided. Either cheeky to poke fun at lack of innovation and revolution to the Vista OS - but NOT at the user! Remember its actually a benefit that the end user can use the Mac Pro or Mac Book series & iMac to install Vista should the user choose to. Market this as a choice something the end user doesnt get at the office ;) Secondly I think Apple should REALLY push the features, power, security, frequent updates to improve an owners system, ALL as a viable reason to own & use both the Mac & OS X! I thought OS X is supposed to sell the hardware, well damnit Apple ADVERTISE IT!
Bring in the big guns Apple to SHOW consumers, small business', family's etc. Get Software companies to advertise how powerful, efficient and productive their products are. How efficient users are USING the Mac. Come up with a low budget, effective direct perspective of how the Mac OS X is. Appeal to the IT Professional, appeal to the family, appeal to the rebel youth, appeal to the manager of a SOHO business, highlight business partners success that use your hardware to make their success.
MacQuest
Oct 18, 06:51 PM
I wish Apple would use more of the innovative spirit that is going into their "entertainment" branch and put it back into their computers.
Knock, Knock.
Who's there?
Leopard.
Knock, Knock.
Who's there?
Leopard.
SilianRail
Apr 12, 06:04 PM
http://www.pcworld.com/article/224995/intel_to_open_up_thunderbolt_development_this_quarter.html#tk.rss_news
dscuber9000
May 1, 10:41 PM
Looking forward to the movie version. ;)
Obama sure made it sound badass. :p
Obama sure made it sound badass. :p
MacCheetah3
Jul 24, 10:25 PM
Hi
1) I don't see the right / left clicking complaint to be valid. It does work differently than a three peice ( two button / rest of shell ) mouse but all it takes is some getting use to. It isn't a design flaw, as far as my opinion goes
2) The scroll ball is a design flaw to an extent but not overly difficult to fix. It simply gets 'greasy' from hand oils, ... Normally using "just enough" rubbing alcohol on a cloth or paper towel and [vigorously] rolling the MM upside down on it with the scroll ball cleans and dislodges any "gunk" buildup. Tedious and one shouldn't have to do it but I've never seen a mouse that stays perfectly clean with 'normal' use.
1) I don't see the right / left clicking complaint to be valid. It does work differently than a three peice ( two button / rest of shell ) mouse but all it takes is some getting use to. It isn't a design flaw, as far as my opinion goes
2) The scroll ball is a design flaw to an extent but not overly difficult to fix. It simply gets 'greasy' from hand oils, ... Normally using "just enough" rubbing alcohol on a cloth or paper towel and [vigorously] rolling the MM upside down on it with the scroll ball cleans and dislodges any "gunk" buildup. Tedious and one shouldn't have to do it but I've never seen a mouse that stays perfectly clean with 'normal' use.
Apple OC
May 1, 11:53 PM
To US its a big deal. It's a blow to the Al-Qaeda that doesn't exist anymore. The current one will still function just as it has for nearly a decade in its cell based way. If anything this will just piss off extremists. Don't think for a second some type of retaliation (most likely attacks in the Middle East) won't come about from this.
are you suggesting we give him a pass? :rolleyes:
are you suggesting we give him a pass? :rolleyes:
ten-oak-druid
Apr 29, 12:56 AM
white iphone also lighter than black iphone? :)
http://www.iphone4society.com/buyer-guide/whitei4-1
Friendship Love Quotes
http://www.iphone4society.com/buyer-guide/whitei4-1
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
funny quotes about friendship
love quotes, Quotes
love images with quotes. funny
Random Love and Friendship
Love Quotes, Romantic quotes,
Love middot; Friendship
Friendship Quotes love
quotes for friendship and
quotes for friendship and love
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Whistleway
Jul 24, 08:01 PM
This is downright silly that a 50bil dollar company can't get a freaking mouse right nor the ability to scroll or right click. No wonder they are turning off a lot of people.
Different is good when it has a purpose. Just had to do everything apple way and cost a gazillion dollars for a decent mouse. It is way too much for me to take, even if it is APPLE. There i said it !!
Different is good when it has a purpose. Just had to do everything apple way and cost a gazillion dollars for a decent mouse. It is way too much for me to take, even if it is APPLE. There i said it !!
IJ Reilly
Oct 18, 06:21 PM
I think this is different. Our company is not buying any Intel-based macs until Adobe releases Universal CS, and I don't know why anyone would spend $$ on new hardwre now only to take a performance hit, vs. a performance increase and better hardware bang for the buck by waiting 6-9 months.
Because not everyone uses Adobe CS, and because you're always going to get better bang for your buck by waiting?
Because not everyone uses Adobe CS, and because you're always going to get better bang for your buck by waiting?
Razeus
Apr 11, 01:34 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5600543755_fa3e52e958_z.jpg
ThaDoggg
Apr 22, 05:03 PM
I really like the teardrop design of this iPhone. Not too sure what to think about the gesture based home button. Could be a hit or a flop...can hardly wait to see a demo if this is the real deal. But like with all rumours, chances are it's not real.
hulugu
Dec 4, 03:43 PM
Yeah, when the poll was loading I expected 80-90% to be concerned about security, turns out only 40% are. So many ignorant "blissful" people that excuse Apple and think "It's Apple, of course it's safe". Obviously it's not. Ten serious exploits in about as many days of looking (they spent 30 days total, about an equal amount on linux and mac, and the rest on other OS's, so 10 should be right) and that is just scratching the surface. I was shocked that Apple actually had so many vulnerabilities, and for those that didn't find it scary that someone can install a program with kernel access simply by having you download their dmg file (not even opening it), well they're just being silly and need to realize that this is and some extremely bad things can happen if we are to go by that analysts words (saying OS X is not hot on security and that it is easy to find new hacks). :p
Not at all. I voted no, and I did so because I've spent enough time reading through vulnerability assesments to know that <i>all</i> software has problems, therefore I tend not to light my hair on fire and run around screaming the sky is falling the minute someone finds a flaw or a vector of flaws like the MOKB. Instead, I pay attention to the results, take steps to mitigate any possible problems, and then wait for the Security Update from Apple. The sooner the update happens, like the quick fix for the iAdware flaw, the happier I am.
Furthermore, one of the MOKB flaws is just a bug and is not actually a security vulnerability. The dmg vulnerability, wherein a malformed disk image can crash OS X and during this inject uknown code, has been debunked according to this guy (http://alastairs-place.net/2006/11/dmg-vulnerability/).
So, no I'm not concerned. I'm watchful, but I'm going to withhold the running and screaming and the Apple-better-*******-fix-this! rant until something serious happens.
Not at all. I voted no, and I did so because I've spent enough time reading through vulnerability assesments to know that <i>all</i> software has problems, therefore I tend not to light my hair on fire and run around screaming the sky is falling the minute someone finds a flaw or a vector of flaws like the MOKB. Instead, I pay attention to the results, take steps to mitigate any possible problems, and then wait for the Security Update from Apple. The sooner the update happens, like the quick fix for the iAdware flaw, the happier I am.
Furthermore, one of the MOKB flaws is just a bug and is not actually a security vulnerability. The dmg vulnerability, wherein a malformed disk image can crash OS X and during this inject uknown code, has been debunked according to this guy (http://alastairs-place.net/2006/11/dmg-vulnerability/).
So, no I'm not concerned. I'm watchful, but I'm going to withhold the running and screaming and the Apple-better-*******-fix-this! rant until something serious happens.
The Bazilfunk
Jul 11, 10:01 PM
I still don't get the value of wireless in a music player--not in actual practice (battery life and added bulk, vs. the need to plug in to charge, which naturally takes longer than synching anyway).
But whatever it is, I think its chances will depend a lot on whether it can be as slim and light as an iPod, and the same elegant ease-of-use as iTunes and iPod.
Wireless music players is the future but also a problem again for the music industry. Taken the popularity of the iPod you would be able to have acces to over a 1000 music librarys in a small city. You would be able get a new network next to the internet dedicated to wireless music and videos. This all if Apple doesn't lock those things out but surely hacks would be created to make this possible.
Filesharing will move from the internet to the street. I see a lot of things possible with wireless music players. For good and bad but it will definately change the way we listen to music again.
But whatever it is, I think its chances will depend a lot on whether it can be as slim and light as an iPod, and the same elegant ease-of-use as iTunes and iPod.
Wireless music players is the future but also a problem again for the music industry. Taken the popularity of the iPod you would be able to have acces to over a 1000 music librarys in a small city. You would be able get a new network next to the internet dedicated to wireless music and videos. This all if Apple doesn't lock those things out but surely hacks would be created to make this possible.
Filesharing will move from the internet to the street. I see a lot of things possible with wireless music players. For good and bad but it will definately change the way we listen to music again.
dugbug
Jun 6, 01:24 PM
Sad thing is the developer is now going to be charged $300 (Apple requires the developer to reimburse the user Apple's commission).
Umbongo
May 3, 07:45 AM
Not really sure why Apple can't bring themselves to put an i7 by default in a $2,000 machine. That's kind of ridiculous.
Because it would cost them another $100 in parts without increasing sales. This way they make more money per sale and will make even more from those who want it. There would be no processor upgrade path if they put the i7 as default.
Because it would cost them another $100 in parts without increasing sales. This way they make more money per sale and will make even more from those who want it. There would be no processor upgrade path if they put the i7 as default.
KyPosey
Jan 26, 11:40 AM
http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx302/ajithrockscc/shopandbargain/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-Xbox-360.jpg
yeah im behind the times.
yeah im behind the times.
Bonch
Apr 22, 04:24 PM
Looks horrible. Keep the flat back of 4.
eddx
Jul 24, 02:24 PM
How much do you think this will cost? I would love to get one for my new laptop but I think it could be priced a little too high for a lot of us.
Good news, long time coming! lol
Good news, long time coming! lol
SciFrog
Oct 26, 08:21 PM
The 80k PPD is a 32 core AMD system...
rcandre2
Apr 29, 12:25 AM
Mine is definitely thicker than my black one. One of them (bought two today) is actually crooked.... when I lay it down on a flat surface it doesn't lay down completely... there is a "wobble" to it.. wonder if the case is warped.
rdowns
Feb 28, 06:10 PM
Between him and Cryer, that's still half of what the show brings in. And you're still not factoring in production costs.
Remember that CBS gets to air reruns and also owns part of the show to sell into syndication. That damn psycho has probably generated a billion dollars for CBS.
Here's a list of what some TV stars earn. (http://www.tvguide.com/News/Top-TV-Earners-1021717.aspx)
Says Sheen gets $1.25 million, Cryer at $550K and the kid at $250K.
Remember that CBS gets to air reruns and also owns part of the show to sell into syndication. That damn psycho has probably generated a billion dollars for CBS.
Here's a list of what some TV stars earn. (http://www.tvguide.com/News/Top-TV-Earners-1021717.aspx)
Says Sheen gets $1.25 million, Cryer at $550K and the kid at $250K.
No comments:
Post a Comment