SciFrog
Nov 2, 04:11 PM
We might take team Lituania today ;)
We got them!
Well, we may pass each other back and forth a few times before we can really pull away...
Next target: 2.3 weeks away! Keep Folding!
And a little pat in the back as I just took the #8 spot on the team. Watch out this week #7! After it gets more tricky and WhiteRabbit is coming behind faaaaast...
We got them!
Well, we may pass each other back and forth a few times before we can really pull away...
Next target: 2.3 weeks away! Keep Folding!
And a little pat in the back as I just took the #8 spot on the team. Watch out this week #7! After it gets more tricky and WhiteRabbit is coming behind faaaaast...
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.
Conan the Barbarian Script
Conan The Barbarian Soundtrack - Anvil Of Crom. 2:37. quot;Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even You, will remember
more...
Conan the Barbarian Soundtrack
Barbarian.2011.DVDrip.
more...
Conan the Barbarian Shirts
Conan the Barbarian Soundtrack
more...
Conan the Barbarian soundtrack
series Conan the Barbarian
more...
Conan the Barbarian Soundtrack
Conan the Barbarian Original
more...
Conan The Barbarian - Soundtrack, Theology - Civilization. Conan The Barbarian - Soundtrack, Theology - Civilization. 3:16. Conan The Barbarian - Soundtrack
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.
superfula
Apr 22, 04:37 PM
Why is this schmuck on the front page? The guy has a history of trolling for page hits. Now that he's trying to get his new site up and running, it's quite obvious what his intent is. He has as much inside information as my grandmother.
shawnce
Jul 21, 12:31 PM
Although Apple is behind Gateway in market share, Apple's earnings (not revenue, earnings) last quarter (not year, quarter) is pretty close to Gateway's market capitalization!
Not surprising given that Gateway's market share numbers come directly from the extremely low margin, low end systems they are dumping on the market. In other words they have higher volumes but they are making next to nothing (for some nearly selling at a loss) in order to get those volumes.
...basically the stock market knows that Gateway is not a very safe bet...
Not surprising given that Gateway's market share numbers come directly from the extremely low margin, low end systems they are dumping on the market. In other words they have higher volumes but they are making next to nothing (for some nearly selling at a loss) in order to get those volumes.
...basically the stock market knows that Gateway is not a very safe bet...
more...
-aggie-
Apr 27, 08:34 PM
Anyone else find it odd the way jav has been acting?
Pot meet kettle.
im gonna follow with ucfgrad and throw -aggie- out there
Wow, maybe there�s something to Appleguy�s theory about you.
Anyway, I�m going into the hospital tomorrow morning and I�m not sure when I�ll be posting again. So, I�ll just leave it at:
The village would be making a HUGE mistake to vote me off, if it comes to that. One of these two, Eldiablowjoe or nies without the bun is probably a WW.
Pot meet kettle.
im gonna follow with ucfgrad and throw -aggie- out there
Wow, maybe there�s something to Appleguy�s theory about you.
Anyway, I�m going into the hospital tomorrow morning and I�m not sure when I�ll be posting again. So, I�ll just leave it at:
The village would be making a HUGE mistake to vote me off, if it comes to that. One of these two, Eldiablowjoe or nies without the bun is probably a WW.
BornAgainMac
Mar 31, 01:21 PM
Microsoft Bob. No wait.... Apple Steve.
more...
kallisti
Apr 12, 05:53 PM
First real try with light painting;
http://i55.tinypic.com/vwslg2.png
Love what you were going for here. It's a fun technique to play with. The focus seems off on all the light trails. Nothing in the image is really sharp. Perhaps that's what you were going for, but these types of images do more for me when the lines/curves are in focus, or when selective focus is used to draw the eye to certain portions of the composition. Having everything out-of-focus weakens the image for me. Take this with a grain of salt though: abstracts sort of defy critique by their very nature.
http://i55.tinypic.com/vwslg2.png
Love what you were going for here. It's a fun technique to play with. The focus seems off on all the light trails. Nothing in the image is really sharp. Perhaps that's what you were going for, but these types of images do more for me when the lines/curves are in focus, or when selective focus is used to draw the eye to certain portions of the composition. Having everything out-of-focus weakens the image for me. Take this with a grain of salt though: abstracts sort of defy critique by their very nature.
dashiel
Apr 23, 06:18 PM
Why?
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
408 area code, that means cali. is that steve jobs' personal number? :P
The T-Mobile deal isn't a for sure thing. Likely, but the FTC could block it. Also, as the article states T-Mobile's towers use a different frequencies.
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
408 area code, that means cali. is that steve jobs' personal number? :P
The T-Mobile deal isn't a for sure thing. Likely, but the FTC could block it. Also, as the article states T-Mobile's towers use a different frequencies.
more...
bpaluzzi
Apr 22, 05:43 PM
Good to see Apple catching up to the features Palm introduced two and a half years ago.
What features would those be, smart guy?
What features would those be, smart guy?
chrmjenkins
Apr 26, 10:40 AM
I'm hoping iPhone 5 supports HSPA+.
That's PLENTY fast. Every bit as fast as current LTE networks.
Not really. There are some markets where Verizon LTE is able to pull down over 10 MB/s, which T-mobile's HSPA+ and WiMax can't touch.
That's PLENTY fast. Every bit as fast as current LTE networks.
Not really. There are some markets where Verizon LTE is able to pull down over 10 MB/s, which T-mobile's HSPA+ and WiMax can't touch.
more...
Eriamjh1138@DAN
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
Testing doesn't mean it is definitely coming. Apple is going to weigh all it as a business opportunity or not.
T-Mobile could mean another 3-6 million phones in a year. If it is a simple hack of an AT&T phone and easy to implement, it might be worth Apple's effort.
Besides, what WILL happen to T-mobile's frequencies? The HW would have to be modified/upgraded/changed to support AT&T, right? Those cell towers won't switch overnight to AT&T freqs for no cost.
What really would make sense would be an AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile WORLD phone. That would make the most sense to me.
T-Mobile could mean another 3-6 million phones in a year. If it is a simple hack of an AT&T phone and easy to implement, it might be worth Apple's effort.
Besides, what WILL happen to T-mobile's frequencies? The HW would have to be modified/upgraded/changed to support AT&T, right? Those cell towers won't switch overnight to AT&T freqs for no cost.
What really would make sense would be an AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile WORLD phone. That would make the most sense to me.
dkoralek
Oct 24, 08:55 AM
And they delayed this update by 6-8 weeks for ... ?
Would/Should we have waited if we knew then what we know now and will know in the future ?
:(
Probably because they needed to wait for sufficient stocks of the faster merom chips (you don't see many of the 2.3GHz offerings from other manufacturers, either). Now I just have to decide if I want to lug a macpro across the pond or go for a 17" mbp.
cheers.
Would/Should we have waited if we knew then what we know now and will know in the future ?
:(
Probably because they needed to wait for sufficient stocks of the faster merom chips (you don't see many of the 2.3GHz offerings from other manufacturers, either). Now I just have to decide if I want to lug a macpro across the pond or go for a 17" mbp.
cheers.
more...
MacRumors
Apr 13, 01:47 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/13/analyst-claims-apple-branded-television-could-appear-later-this-year/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/18/144532-apple_tv_glee.jpg
Conan The Barbarian Soundtrack
more...
Conan the Barbarian Soundtrack
CONAN THE BARBARIAN soundtrack
more...
Conan The Barbarian Soundtrack
Conan The Barbarian Soundtrack
Conan The Barbarian [Complete
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/18/144532-apple_tv_glee.jpg
ranReloaded
May 3, 08:02 AM
Wow... Those are looking hot!
Actually, they look quite the same than before :)
But the innards are cool.
Actually, they look quite the same than before :)
But the innards are cool.
more...
aswitcher
Oct 24, 08:36 AM
Great -- that was my only holdout. Where did you see the info about 802.11n being included?
Just an educated guess.
Just an educated guess.
jiminaus
May 3, 08:16 AM
expensive, why not go MBP + nice LED Screen + SSD?
MBP doesn't have a fast enough GPU. I use my iMac primarily for development. Need raw GHz, not so much multiple-cores.
if you are selling 24", it will go for dirt
Won't sell it. It'll be handed down to family.
MBP doesn't have a fast enough GPU. I use my iMac primarily for development. Need raw GHz, not so much multiple-cores.
if you are selling 24", it will go for dirt
Won't sell it. It'll be handed down to family.
more...
bcharna
Jul 11, 02:58 PM
After really looking at the photo, either Micro**** literally gave the 3G iPod plastic surgery or that is completely Photoshopped. It is SO similar to the 3G iPod with added ugliness to make it Genuine Micro****.
cirus
Apr 25, 02:42 PM
I'm interested to see what ends up in this refresh. My MacBook Pro is great, but a good base iMac option could be appealing. My guesses:
Base 21.5"
Quad Core i7 (2.2GHz?); 2x2GB 1333 DDR3; 640GB 7200RPM HDD; ATI Radeon HD 6670; Thunderbolt, ditch Firewire?; 1920x1080
Fully Loaded 27"
3.4GHz Quad Core i7; 4x4GB 1333 DDR3; 512GB SSD & 2TB 7200 RPM HDD; ATI Radeon HD 6870 (1GB); 2560x1440
I really don't think that the 6870 will be in the 27 inch version. The current card (5750) has a power draw of 86 watts. The 6870 has a draw of 151 watts. Too much heat.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5770,2446-15.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/325-amd-radeon-6870/page10.html
Base 21.5"
Quad Core i7 (2.2GHz?); 2x2GB 1333 DDR3; 640GB 7200RPM HDD; ATI Radeon HD 6670; Thunderbolt, ditch Firewire?; 1920x1080
Fully Loaded 27"
3.4GHz Quad Core i7; 4x4GB 1333 DDR3; 512GB SSD & 2TB 7200 RPM HDD; ATI Radeon HD 6870 (1GB); 2560x1440
I really don't think that the 6870 will be in the 27 inch version. The current card (5750) has a power draw of 86 watts. The 6870 has a draw of 151 watts. Too much heat.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5770,2446-15.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/325-amd-radeon-6870/page10.html
joost538
Dec 1, 04:23 PM
No one.. and stangely it's now ON by DEFAULT in all the MacTels I've received lately. No idea why.
Not here .. (1st gen MacBook 2 GHz)
Not here .. (1st gen MacBook 2 GHz)
Chupa Chupa
May 4, 05:52 AM
Disappointing, but expected. This actually brings up more questions than answers though:
1) Is this a permanent move to a Fall Release of the iPhone?
I'm starting to think it will be. If you look at the "big picture" it makes sense. The iPod is in decline, so Apple's previous big Fall music event isn't really big anymore. The iPhone could shore that up and bring lots of sales to 4Q and maybe even, reinvigorate iPod sales.
Apple then uses early summer to push new Macs for back to school. Late winter/early Spring remains iPad.
1) Is this a permanent move to a Fall Release of the iPhone?
I'm starting to think it will be. If you look at the "big picture" it makes sense. The iPod is in decline, so Apple's previous big Fall music event isn't really big anymore. The iPhone could shore that up and bring lots of sales to 4Q and maybe even, reinvigorate iPod sales.
Apple then uses early summer to push new Macs for back to school. Late winter/early Spring remains iPad.
MacDawg
Mar 8, 08:43 AM
Hmmm... Really. That would be interesting but he doesn't have the same feel as a Charlie Sheen IMHO. That might be interesting thou.
Who does? ;)
Who does? ;)
Mystikal
Mar 14, 05:46 PM
I reserved one at the Costa Mesa Best Buy. The "list was long" so I'm not too confident in getting one this week obviously. Im going to call the Irvine / Fashion Island / South Coast stores later and see if they have any stock. Doubt it though.
*LTD*
Apr 22, 04:56 PM
Good to see Apple catching up to the features Palm introduced two and a half years ago.
Who's Palm?
Who's Palm?
seanpholman
Mar 15, 11:05 AM
Kind of a bummer. Just chasing the tail.
--Sean
--Sean
0 comments:
Post a Comment