JS77
May 3, 07:47 AM
Really good to see the update (finally)... but I am disappointed they didn't bring the 24" back :(
The 27" is too big, and the resolution on the 21.5 is laughable for an upgrade of this magnitude.
Still, quad core across the range is nice.
The 27" is too big, and the resolution on the 21.5 is laughable for an upgrade of this magnitude.
Still, quad core across the range is nice.
andrewbecks
Apr 26, 01:41 PM
I stopped buying iMacs the day they went gloss. I now have a bunch of minis with the older Matte Cinema Displays. As simple as that � I put my money where my mouth is. If I couldn't get these, I would buy other branded displays.
When Steve Jobs made a comment a couple of years ago about Apple's customers saying they preferred gloss (or something like that) I wrote to Apple to say that at least one customer doesn't prefer gloss and why, and there is a pretty vocal group of Apple customers who share my sentiments. At least we were given the option on the MacBook Pros. I hate having to pay extra on an already expensive machine, but that's what I've done with my new just-ordered MBP. It's one small and expensive vote for usability to prevail over eye-candy. Sigh.
While I agree disagree with you as it relates to dsiplay preference (I prefer the glossy display over the matte display), I 100% agree with you in principal. Since Apple has customers who want the matte or anti-gloss option, they ought to make it available--simple as that. This way, everyone can be happy. If you want matte, you should be able to get it just as I'm able to get the glossy screen that I like.
(Plus, if they went to all matte, then the matte displays would weird up against the glossy 27" Cinema Displays, IMO.)
When Steve Jobs made a comment a couple of years ago about Apple's customers saying they preferred gloss (or something like that) I wrote to Apple to say that at least one customer doesn't prefer gloss and why, and there is a pretty vocal group of Apple customers who share my sentiments. At least we were given the option on the MacBook Pros. I hate having to pay extra on an already expensive machine, but that's what I've done with my new just-ordered MBP. It's one small and expensive vote for usability to prevail over eye-candy. Sigh.
While I agree disagree with you as it relates to dsiplay preference (I prefer the glossy display over the matte display), I 100% agree with you in principal. Since Apple has customers who want the matte or anti-gloss option, they ought to make it available--simple as that. This way, everyone can be happy. If you want matte, you should be able to get it just as I'm able to get the glossy screen that I like.
(Plus, if they went to all matte, then the matte displays would weird up against the glossy 27" Cinema Displays, IMO.)
RBR2
Apr 26, 03:27 PM
Ah, I completely forgot about PCI-Express based SSDs. I kept thinking about 6Gbps SATA SSDs.
Also, "SSD drive" is redundant :).
TB is basically PCIe + Display Port video.
Part of the discussion on expansion cards for Mac Pros was that, according to Intel, TB must have direct access to the PCIe lanes and the graphics processor. In theory, someone could come up with a PCIe graphics processor board with a TB controller, ports & etc, but the question will be whether there is a sufficiently large market for the device.
Whether a RAID array saturates TB or not, the bottom line is that TB is a great deal faster than even an eSATA connection. When will TB 2.0 come out? Who knows? Let's see how version 1.0 is adopted.
Cheers
Also, "SSD drive" is redundant :).
TB is basically PCIe + Display Port video.
Part of the discussion on expansion cards for Mac Pros was that, according to Intel, TB must have direct access to the PCIe lanes and the graphics processor. In theory, someone could come up with a PCIe graphics processor board with a TB controller, ports & etc, but the question will be whether there is a sufficiently large market for the device.
Whether a RAID array saturates TB or not, the bottom line is that TB is a great deal faster than even an eSATA connection. When will TB 2.0 come out? Who knows? Let's see how version 1.0 is adopted.
Cheers
bld44
Apr 2, 02:00 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5577952185_1f480a1461_b.jpg
flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davisbrandon/5577952185/in/set-72157626402529420/)
flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davisbrandon/5577952185/in/set-72157626402529420/)
fatboyslick
May 4, 04:18 AM
Let's be clear... "Android" is an OS from Google that you can find on dozens of phones from many manufacturers.
Apple knows they can't compete with that. And they're not. Marketshare is not a goal. For instance... Android has more marketshare... now what?
It's Mac vs Windows all over again. Windows is crushing Macs 10 to 1. Dell and HP have sales that dwarf the Mac. But is Apple really in trouble with the Mac?
Apple sells phones... and quite a lot of them. 18 million iPhones last quarter... and 16 million in the previous quarter. Any other manufacturer would kill for those numbers.
If iPhone sales drop to ZERO... then we can talk about Apple rethinking their strategy. Until then... Apple will continue to sell hundreds of thousands of phones every day... further positioning themselves away from bankruptcy.
Indeed - Apple make money from the sale of iphone hardware whereas Google will only take a percentage.
However, Google's plan is to control OS's because they then make money from their App store and adverts
Apple identified this last year and thus released the Ad-Sense scheme for devs to tempt them to use Apple's App Store over Googles.
Apple knows they can't compete with that. And they're not. Marketshare is not a goal. For instance... Android has more marketshare... now what?
It's Mac vs Windows all over again. Windows is crushing Macs 10 to 1. Dell and HP have sales that dwarf the Mac. But is Apple really in trouble with the Mac?
Apple sells phones... and quite a lot of them. 18 million iPhones last quarter... and 16 million in the previous quarter. Any other manufacturer would kill for those numbers.
If iPhone sales drop to ZERO... then we can talk about Apple rethinking their strategy. Until then... Apple will continue to sell hundreds of thousands of phones every day... further positioning themselves away from bankruptcy.
Indeed - Apple make money from the sale of iphone hardware whereas Google will only take a percentage.
However, Google's plan is to control OS's because they then make money from their App store and adverts
Apple identified this last year and thus released the Ad-Sense scheme for devs to tempt them to use Apple's App Store over Googles.
ghostlyorb
Apr 11, 05:02 PM
iWant one =/
Tones2
Apr 22, 10:46 AM
Image (http://dailymobile.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/HTC-ThunderBolt-vs-iPhone-4-Internet-Speed-Test.jpg)
Uh, no thanks. I don't need a bigger phone print in my pocket.
Just get bigger pockets. :)
Tony
Uh, no thanks. I don't need a bigger phone print in my pocket.
Just get bigger pockets. :)
Tony
network23
Jul 25, 11:04 AM
But I think the biggest advantage is that it would be very very simple to adjust the interface to dial phonenumbers, type text messages, and so on. In other words: the iPhone would be within handreach, and it would not require dozens of buttons added to interface (eg via a dock connector like the FM radio) I believe this was planned for 2006
This is what I thought when I saw the report on the Apple patents for the different interfaces (number pad, 4-way "cross" control, iPod controls, etc.). What if those "alternative" controls were actually all "displayed" controls on a none-touch screen, and Apple is planning on making this device your iPod, your cell phone, and your gaming machine? Depending on what you select, the proper controls will appear.
We know Apple was looking to hire a game programmer for the iPod. We think Apple's working on a cell phone based on comments made at the last financials meeting. We saw the patents for the various control interfaces, coincidentally all being shown on the same form factor.
My concerns are cost(how in the world could Apple make such a device that's also affordable) and simplicity(most iPod reviewers seem to come to the conclusion that it's the iPod simplicity that's the key to its success). Adding all these features seems very un-Apple and could make the device rather confusing and cumbersome.
This is what I thought when I saw the report on the Apple patents for the different interfaces (number pad, 4-way "cross" control, iPod controls, etc.). What if those "alternative" controls were actually all "displayed" controls on a none-touch screen, and Apple is planning on making this device your iPod, your cell phone, and your gaming machine? Depending on what you select, the proper controls will appear.
We know Apple was looking to hire a game programmer for the iPod. We think Apple's working on a cell phone based on comments made at the last financials meeting. We saw the patents for the various control interfaces, coincidentally all being shown on the same form factor.
My concerns are cost(how in the world could Apple make such a device that's also affordable) and simplicity(most iPod reviewers seem to come to the conclusion that it's the iPod simplicity that's the key to its success). Adding all these features seems very un-Apple and could make the device rather confusing and cumbersome.
Otaillon
Jan 31, 12:15 PM
http://www.abload.de/img/img_1259vmsw.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/img_1263bm6v.jpg
:rolleyes:
I searched for one on eBay last week! :eek: Where did you get it?
http://www.abload.de/img/img_1263bm6v.jpg
:rolleyes:
I searched for one on eBay last week! :eek: Where did you get it?
gauriemma
Jul 21, 11:39 AM
Sweet!
As long as Apple doesn't grow too fast, this is great news. Get to Gateway in the next few years, and I'll be happy. Just don't grow too big, Apple.
Catching up to Gateway is good, I suppose, but I seriously didn't even know they were even still around. That's a pretty low bar to set...
As long as Apple doesn't grow too fast, this is great news. Get to Gateway in the next few years, and I'll be happy. Just don't grow too big, Apple.
Catching up to Gateway is good, I suppose, but I seriously didn't even know they were even still around. That's a pretty low bar to set...
Corey Grandy
Sep 13, 10:07 PM
Where can you purchase it?
www.threadless.com
;)
:D
www.threadless.com
;)
:D
whatever
Oct 23, 11:18 AM
oh great. so those mac users who are possibly interested in actually getting a legitimate version now have to pay a lot...
...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...
Come on, who really buys legal copies of Windows?
A few years ago I tried to buy a legal copy of Windows 2000 (the software I was loading required 2000 and would not work on XP). I started off at CompUSA and after a few more stores I ended up contacting Microsoft directly and they thought I was crazy. They were totality confused by my request to buy a legal copy of Windows. They referred me to the restore discs that came with a Dell we had. Well, that didn't really help much. And then they actually recommended that I borrow a copy from a friend.
And here I was trying to buy a legal copy of Windows from MS, granted it wasn't the latest version (however XP had just come out, so 2000 wasn't that old) and MS was telling me to pirate the software.
...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...
Come on, who really buys legal copies of Windows?
A few years ago I tried to buy a legal copy of Windows 2000 (the software I was loading required 2000 and would not work on XP). I started off at CompUSA and after a few more stores I ended up contacting Microsoft directly and they thought I was crazy. They were totality confused by my request to buy a legal copy of Windows. They referred me to the restore discs that came with a Dell we had. Well, that didn't really help much. And then they actually recommended that I borrow a copy from a friend.
And here I was trying to buy a legal copy of Windows from MS, granted it wasn't the latest version (however XP had just come out, so 2000 wasn't that old) and MS was telling me to pirate the software.
vand0576
Aug 16, 05:20 PM
Many people have brought up how it may be a difficulty to control a "none-touch" type interface by never coming in contact with it (try holding your current iPod and making swirls around the clickwheel without contacting it, not the easiest or most comfortable thing to do). Others are worried about getting the screen all smudged by placing fingers on it.
I currently use a 4G iPod with a polycarbonate casing from Contour Design. It even has a mylar cover for over the click wheel where it is exposed. I would never be caught without the case, as I fear scratches most as I plan to resell it sometime in the future. The remarkable thing about the clickwheel is that you (or at least I) can still control it through my pants pocket on the outside of my jeans. That essentially is a "none-touch" concept my finger having never been in direct contact with the iPod. I remember the reports of the "none-touch" design to be able to distinguish contact from non-concact through the medium within direct proximity to the device. What would be great in my mind is that if the next gen iPod did have a full screen and could be controlled through "non-touching" is that you could enclose the entire apparatus in polycarbonate while allowing the sensors to detect the "none-touch" still (something the current click wheels cannot do, aside from a few thin layers of fabric), but having it be easier to control because you can then come in contact with the polycarbonate casing. It would fully protect from scratches, and i have never noticed any fingerprints on the polycarbonate casing any way, so it would seem that this implementation of the "none-touch" would be win-win. Complete enclosure and no fingerprints.
I currently use a 4G iPod with a polycarbonate casing from Contour Design. It even has a mylar cover for over the click wheel where it is exposed. I would never be caught without the case, as I fear scratches most as I plan to resell it sometime in the future. The remarkable thing about the clickwheel is that you (or at least I) can still control it through my pants pocket on the outside of my jeans. That essentially is a "none-touch" concept my finger having never been in direct contact with the iPod. I remember the reports of the "none-touch" design to be able to distinguish contact from non-concact through the medium within direct proximity to the device. What would be great in my mind is that if the next gen iPod did have a full screen and could be controlled through "non-touching" is that you could enclose the entire apparatus in polycarbonate while allowing the sensors to detect the "none-touch" still (something the current click wheels cannot do, aside from a few thin layers of fabric), but having it be easier to control because you can then come in contact with the polycarbonate casing. It would fully protect from scratches, and i have never noticed any fingerprints on the polycarbonate casing any way, so it would seem that this implementation of the "none-touch" would be win-win. Complete enclosure and no fingerprints.
rdowns
Mar 1, 09:04 AM
OK, lets play a game. No cheating!
Who Said It - Sheen or Gaddafi:
1. And they're going to fuel the battle cry of my deadly & dangerous & secret & silent soldiers.
2. I'm a fighter, I'm a struggler.
3. There's a new sheriff in town and he has an army of assassins.
4. I will deploy my ordinance to the ground.
Who Said It - Sheen or Gaddafi:
1. And they're going to fuel the battle cry of my deadly & dangerous & secret & silent soldiers.
2. I'm a fighter, I'm a struggler.
3. There's a new sheriff in town and he has an army of assassins.
4. I will deploy my ordinance to the ground.
*LTD*
Apr 24, 03:40 PM
There is a lot of Apple Dick riding going on. Their is nothing wrong with that. But at some point you have to wake up and look at the rest of the world. World wide in smartphone sells Iphone leads by a large margin. World wide Smartphone OSs, iPhone is generally in third or fourth place (Depends on who made it, Some put RIM in front of iOS). But the majority of them place Android or Symbian as the top selling OS.
If many of your theories that android would disappear if the iPhone was on the same carrier holds no weight. AT&T is still selling millions of Android based phones next to the iPhone (that is was even when AT&T had a piss poor line up android phones.) Right now yes iPhone is selling more then android OS on verizon. But once the honey moon phase is over android based phones will slip back ahead in sells.
And please for the love of all thats good stop going by your personal observations. Watch me do it. In my men of honor meetings on campus I see no iOS devices and half the room has Androids. In my history class there is an equal proportion of Android OS to iOS phones. its based on where and when you look however it does not represent the entire world.
But this does my school did a survey online and we found as March 20 the Ratios look like this- Blackberry 17%, iOS 40, Android 35%, other ties in the rest. Highest selling phone: iPhone 4, iPhone 3gs, Lg Optimus 1 series of phones.
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Google does not care - I'll repeat that - DOES NOT CARE, about what happens to their OS, on what devices it's used, what the result is when someone like ZTE or Dell gets their hands on it. It's a great recipe for pushing huge amounts of volume. It's also a great recipe for manufacturing cheap, poorly-made phones in China. The upshot of all this is you get massively inflated market share, a good chunk owing to phones that should have never seen the light of day. Yes, you have the choice to buy junk. You have the choice to just buy a cheapie. Nothing inherently wrong with this. It's your call, right? HOWEVER, this also contributes to Android market share. That's the catch. The question is not just: how big is your market share? But also: what constitutes your market share?
What constitutes Apple's market share? There's no chance for any confusion here. The iPhone. Same attention to detail in hardware and OS, same high-quality User Experience device to device. All the things that make it the #1 selling handset. There is no chance of junk. In fact, if you're Apple, you owe it to yourself to get as close to perfection as you can every time, because you only sell ONE phone, and not on every carrier, and your licensing is closed. Every last % of Apple's share is an iPhone. There is no chance for crap or inflated share from the sale of cheap commodity-phones.
Apple's share constitutes the #1-selling handset. Exclusively. Android share constitutes: the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.
How does Android market share look now? I'd wager it looks a bit different than before you looked at what's behind the numbers, that is, the kind of infrastructure that supports those high numbers.
Yes, highest market share for Android. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
If many of your theories that android would disappear if the iPhone was on the same carrier holds no weight. AT&T is still selling millions of Android based phones next to the iPhone (that is was even when AT&T had a piss poor line up android phones.) Right now yes iPhone is selling more then android OS on verizon. But once the honey moon phase is over android based phones will slip back ahead in sells.
And please for the love of all thats good stop going by your personal observations. Watch me do it. In my men of honor meetings on campus I see no iOS devices and half the room has Androids. In my history class there is an equal proportion of Android OS to iOS phones. its based on where and when you look however it does not represent the entire world.
But this does my school did a survey online and we found as March 20 the Ratios look like this- Blackberry 17%, iOS 40, Android 35%, other ties in the rest. Highest selling phone: iPhone 4, iPhone 3gs, Lg Optimus 1 series of phones.
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Google does not care - I'll repeat that - DOES NOT CARE, about what happens to their OS, on what devices it's used, what the result is when someone like ZTE or Dell gets their hands on it. It's a great recipe for pushing huge amounts of volume. It's also a great recipe for manufacturing cheap, poorly-made phones in China. The upshot of all this is you get massively inflated market share, a good chunk owing to phones that should have never seen the light of day. Yes, you have the choice to buy junk. You have the choice to just buy a cheapie. Nothing inherently wrong with this. It's your call, right? HOWEVER, this also contributes to Android market share. That's the catch. The question is not just: how big is your market share? But also: what constitutes your market share?
What constitutes Apple's market share? There's no chance for any confusion here. The iPhone. Same attention to detail in hardware and OS, same high-quality User Experience device to device. All the things that make it the #1 selling handset. There is no chance of junk. In fact, if you're Apple, you owe it to yourself to get as close to perfection as you can every time, because you only sell ONE phone, and not on every carrier, and your licensing is closed. Every last % of Apple's share is an iPhone. There is no chance for crap or inflated share from the sale of cheap commodity-phones.
Apple's share constitutes the #1-selling handset. Exclusively. Android share constitutes: the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.
How does Android market share look now? I'd wager it looks a bit different than before you looked at what's behind the numbers, that is, the kind of infrastructure that supports those high numbers.
Yes, highest market share for Android. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
iApples
May 1, 11:20 PM
the sad part is that the US in most terms failed to capture him since it took over ten years. It's like entering a race and losing 99 out of 100 races and then suddenly winning the last race and obtaining victory, when in doubt, clearly was not enough.
Yeah it's true. Even though it's something the US should be happy about.. In reality it's really an eye opener. It took one of the world most powerful Countries 10 years to find one single person. That's more of a loss in my books.
Yeah it's true. Even though it's something the US should be happy about.. In reality it's really an eye opener. It took one of the world most powerful Countries 10 years to find one single person. That's more of a loss in my books.
Heilage
Mar 31, 02:54 PM
Not a fan. I prefer a unified UI, this goes against all that.
bousozoku
Jul 11, 01:19 AM
Apple never intended for iWork to compete with MS Office. Apple merely wanted to fill a niche for those AppleWorks users who didn't need a full blown behemoth Office Suite like MS Office.
It is only the die-hard Apple users that detest MS Office who are suggesting that iWork is a replacement for MS Office.
I have been using Pages and Keynote since Day One. Pages One was almost worthless in my book. Apple should have given away Pages v2 to those who suffered through version 1. Keynote was interesting and useful from version one but still lags significantly behind PowerPoint.
Both Pages 2 and Keynote now make a nice little package at $79.00 for those users who don't need to work in an MS Office environment and don't need all of the revision, collaboration, and integration tools of MS Office.
But come on, let's get real. iWork doesn't really come close to what is offered by a professional business suite like MS Office. It's like saying, Photshop Elements is a replacement for Creative Suite 2.:eek:
Photoshop Elements 4.0 is a capable replacement for Photoshop CS2 for a lot of people, even professionals. It depends on what you're doing with it.
I've used various word processors since writing my own in the early 1980s and MS Word 4.0 was quite nice but Microsoft kept adding so many features that it's become haphazard and troublesome. It is counter-productive for a lot of people, especially when you have to revise previous documents.
Pages 2 is a useful release but it's not final. To discount it or iWork totally is not reasonable.
It is only the die-hard Apple users that detest MS Office who are suggesting that iWork is a replacement for MS Office.
I have been using Pages and Keynote since Day One. Pages One was almost worthless in my book. Apple should have given away Pages v2 to those who suffered through version 1. Keynote was interesting and useful from version one but still lags significantly behind PowerPoint.
Both Pages 2 and Keynote now make a nice little package at $79.00 for those users who don't need to work in an MS Office environment and don't need all of the revision, collaboration, and integration tools of MS Office.
But come on, let's get real. iWork doesn't really come close to what is offered by a professional business suite like MS Office. It's like saying, Photshop Elements is a replacement for Creative Suite 2.:eek:
Photoshop Elements 4.0 is a capable replacement for Photoshop CS2 for a lot of people, even professionals. It depends on what you're doing with it.
I've used various word processors since writing my own in the early 1980s and MS Word 4.0 was quite nice but Microsoft kept adding so many features that it's become haphazard and troublesome. It is counter-productive for a lot of people, especially when you have to revise previous documents.
Pages 2 is a useful release but it's not final. To discount it or iWork totally is not reasonable.
acidfast7
Oct 31, 11:30 AM
Either...
This (http://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Manhattan-Office-Espresso-High-back-Chair/4015748/product.html?rcmndsrc=2):
http://kttns.org/ogrmy
or
This (http://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Manhattan-Espresso-Office-Chair/3097391/product.html?rcmndsrc=2):
http://kttns.org/nwvl
Which one is better?
Nothing else really.
Why don't you pick up the real Eames Aluminum Management chair?
I bought one for the office and it's extremely nice and comfortable. It's def a show-stopper when people enter.
This (http://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Manhattan-Office-Espresso-High-back-Chair/4015748/product.html?rcmndsrc=2):
http://kttns.org/ogrmy
or
This (http://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Manhattan-Espresso-Office-Chair/3097391/product.html?rcmndsrc=2):
http://kttns.org/nwvl
Which one is better?
Nothing else really.
Why don't you pick up the real Eames Aluminum Management chair?
I bought one for the office and it's extremely nice and comfortable. It's def a show-stopper when people enter.
unvjustintime
Jan 27, 08:57 AM
The people who own AAPL stock are not like you and me. I'd be shocked if they've even heard of Macworld. They don't use or own Apple computers, they just automatically buy whatever hot stock happens to have gone up this week. When it starts going down, they sell off. Tech stocks are especially prone to this kind of short-sighted selling. It's cold in New York, investors are selling in order to go on vacation. Simiple as that.
I own 957 shares and visit this site every day.
I own 957 shares and visit this site every day.
puma1552
Nov 10, 07:58 AM
Burberry Pullover
http://g.nordstromimage.com/imagegallery/store/product/Large/10/_6217670.jpg
http://g.nordstromimage.com/imagegallery/store/product/Large/6/_6233646.jpg
link?
another brand that plasters its name all over their stuff
great
where you've been? abercrombies lowest quality company has been around almost 10 years lol
http://g.nordstromimage.com/imagegallery/store/product/Large/10/_6217670.jpg
http://g.nordstromimage.com/imagegallery/store/product/Large/6/_6233646.jpg
link?
another brand that plasters its name all over their stuff
great
where you've been? abercrombies lowest quality company has been around almost 10 years lol
Leaping Tortois
Apr 30, 10:54 AM
I'm just putting it out there that either apple are greedy bastards, or they're offsetting the cost of the US customers by increasing the prices elsewhere. I live in Australia, where the minimum cost of a song on the iTunes store is $1.69, with most songs costing $2.19. Explain to me why this is the case when there's no physical handling, just accessing a server, and our dollar is worth more than the US dollar.
Like I said, apple are greedy bastards. I reckon amazon should off the mp3's in a variety of formats, OR in mp3, with the option of downloading a wav or FLAC file. In the case of full albums, offering an ISO of the CD would be nice. Until then, I'd prefer to stay away, for the most part I still buy CD's. I'm not going to switch to entirely digital for a long time.
Like I said, apple are greedy bastards. I reckon amazon should off the mp3's in a variety of formats, OR in mp3, with the option of downloading a wav or FLAC file. In the case of full albums, offering an ISO of the CD would be nice. Until then, I'd prefer to stay away, for the most part I still buy CD's. I'm not going to switch to entirely digital for a long time.
ERICLRICH
Apr 23, 09:26 PM
AT&T=High prices (unlimited talk for $69.99 a month!).:mad:
Verizon=Can't talk and web at same time.:mad:
T-Mobile=Do EVERYTHING FAST for a cheap price!!!:D
This will be great because I always wanted an iPhone on T-Mobile.:)
They should put 4G on the T-Mobile iPhone because 3G is just too old for a new phone.
EDGE is just tooooooooooooooooooo slow.
Also possibly Mobile Hotspot may be included for FREE!!!:D
Plus Unlimited Data for like $10 a month!!!:D
Verizon=Can't talk and web at same time.:mad:
T-Mobile=Do EVERYTHING FAST for a cheap price!!!:D
This will be great because I always wanted an iPhone on T-Mobile.:)
They should put 4G on the T-Mobile iPhone because 3G is just too old for a new phone.
EDGE is just tooooooooooooooooooo slow.
Also possibly Mobile Hotspot may be included for FREE!!!:D
Plus Unlimited Data for like $10 a month!!!:D
paradox00
Nov 10, 03:41 PM
just goes to show people still want to be able to see flash on their iphones reguardless of how bloated
I got it just to test it out, and I suspect many others did the same.
Processing Flash on a server means the bloat isn't on the phone, so this doesn't actually mean people want flash at any cost. That said, click to flash would be nice, but we'll never see it.
I got it just to test it out, and I suspect many others did the same.
Processing Flash on a server means the bloat isn't on the phone, so this doesn't actually mean people want flash at any cost. That said, click to flash would be nice, but we'll never see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment