notabadname
Mar 22, 02:01 PM
The screen is not 50% smaller. Nice way of making yourself look stupid.
Playbook has that elusive flash support out of the box which every apple fanboy wants to hide under the rug.
OS is more eloquent than iOS.
Well, if you are going to tell people their posts make them look stupid, perhaps you should consider your own, and read a dictionary before throwing around three syllable words. Your use of the word "eloquent" is incorrect. "Eloquent" is not a word that applies to a software operating system.
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "Your post was not eloquent".
Playbook has that elusive flash support out of the box which every apple fanboy wants to hide under the rug.
OS is more eloquent than iOS.
Well, if you are going to tell people their posts make them look stupid, perhaps you should consider your own, and read a dictionary before throwing around three syllable words. Your use of the word "eloquent" is incorrect. "Eloquent" is not a word that applies to a software operating system.
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "Your post was not eloquent".
Amazing Iceman
Mar 31, 05:21 PM
Apple realized long time ago that it is bad if the cell service provider has too much freedom, puts too much **** on the phone and customizes it in ways that it is no longer maintainable ... they got bashed as being too closed.
But now people finally realize they were right:
- android is getting too fragmented because service providers are either too slow to provide updates or refuse to update at all for current phones
- microsoft just realed an update to their mobile7 - guess what: service providers are too slow to update the brand new phones - weeks after the MS release they still need many more weeks to 'test' and 'adjust' for their phones
What good is it to have an OS that claims to be 'open' but you still can't get updates because the openess was abused by service providers who struggle to re-adding their ****.
The problem that has always existed, not just with Android, is that the carriers customize the OS, release it with a phone, and you can forget about getting any updates for it. Maybe one update for the lifetime of the device, if you are lucky. My HTC TouchPro 2 has only seen in almost 2 years just one update to WM 6.5, and it was not even close to the most current revision at that time.
This just shows that carriers and manufacturers don't want to keep maintaining their phones. They want to sell and forget, and push a new model out the door.
Sad, but true... :(
But now people finally realize they were right:
- android is getting too fragmented because service providers are either too slow to provide updates or refuse to update at all for current phones
- microsoft just realed an update to their mobile7 - guess what: service providers are too slow to update the brand new phones - weeks after the MS release they still need many more weeks to 'test' and 'adjust' for their phones
What good is it to have an OS that claims to be 'open' but you still can't get updates because the openess was abused by service providers who struggle to re-adding their ****.
The problem that has always existed, not just with Android, is that the carriers customize the OS, release it with a phone, and you can forget about getting any updates for it. Maybe one update for the lifetime of the device, if you are lucky. My HTC TouchPro 2 has only seen in almost 2 years just one update to WM 6.5, and it was not even close to the most current revision at that time.
This just shows that carriers and manufacturers don't want to keep maintaining their phones. They want to sell and forget, and push a new model out the door.
Sad, but true... :(
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 6, 10:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
only the 13" mbp has integrated graphics, they are not quite as good as the 320m on older models or in the current mba, but they are much better than integrated graphics of the past. All other mbp models come with the integrated graphics as well as a discrete graphics processor.
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
only the 13" mbp has integrated graphics, they are not quite as good as the 320m on older models or in the current mba, but they are much better than integrated graphics of the past. All other mbp models come with the integrated graphics as well as a discrete graphics processor.
craig jones
Sep 13, 12:58 PM
Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
ciTiger
Mar 25, 10:35 PM
What? this seems hard to believe... Already done on development? :confused:
mr.steevo
Apr 27, 10:05 AM
I don't understand politics. Your economy is sinking, unemployment rates are high, real estate prices have collapsed, gasoline prices are spiking. The world is wondering if this is the end of America's super status and there is more concern over a birth certificate issue that was put to bed 3 years ago.??
From where I'm standing the US is in serious financial trouble based on the decisions of previous governments and the current government is left cleaning it up. This is the worst time for the left and right to be bickering about such pettiness as a slow economic fall is becoming inevitable. This is like watching two officers argue about who gets to lower the lifeboats while the Titanic is sinking.
From where I'm standing the US is in serious financial trouble based on the decisions of previous governments and the current government is left cleaning it up. This is the worst time for the left and right to be bickering about such pettiness as a slow economic fall is becoming inevitable. This is like watching two officers argue about who gets to lower the lifeboats while the Titanic is sinking.
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 08:11 AM
5. Can Apple locate me based on my geo-tagged Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
peterdevries
Apr 20, 08:50 AM
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
Read my post properly. If one company doesn't patent the idea, than other companies can copy it without consequence. If Samsung was indeed first (and I'm not challenging that they were, I don't know), than they are stupid that they didn't patent it.
I'm sure Samsung sues many other companies that infringe on their patents.
I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. People need to see that this is normal business practice (whatever your opinion of it may be is totally besides the point).
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
Read my post properly. If one company doesn't patent the idea, than other companies can copy it without consequence. If Samsung was indeed first (and I'm not challenging that they were, I don't know), than they are stupid that they didn't patent it.
I'm sure Samsung sues many other companies that infringe on their patents.
I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. People need to see that this is normal business practice (whatever your opinion of it may be is totally besides the point).
Georgie
Aug 26, 02:55 PM
Dude. You bought Rev. A machines. I've bought -- EIGHTEEN Macs over the past two years and -- nope NO problems. Granted, they are all PowerPc Macs. Just bought the final Rev. PowerPC 12" Powerbook G4 last week. I'm pleased as punch.
Sorry about your luck but you bought Rev. A machines. The only Rev A machine I ever bought from Apple was the Titanium (tibook) 400mhz G4 Powerbook in August of 2001. Three years later, almost to the day the warranty ended, Apple replaced almost the whole machine under Applecare. That was about my only trouble with Apple, and the problem with the machine was that I was really scared and all thumbs when it came to putting in a stick of memory -- broke the holders and they sent a whole new logic board. That machine is still going strong, with a DayStar CPU upgrade, in a friend's office, and it's got years left in her.
Three of my friends still are on 1998 and 1999 iMacs, going strong with new harddrives only. Two of my other friends are on 2001 and 2000 year iMacs -- one with the same hard drive. Two friends are on 2001/2000 iBooks, going strong. My sister and two other friends are on year 2002 iMacs. All kicking butt. Personally, I prefer my year 2002 667mhz VGA Titanium Powerbook (on it right now) to my other machines and will be upgrading the CPU to 1.2ghz in a few months at Daystar. All to say that Apple makes kickbutt machines. Sorry about your luck. Oh, and again, forgot to mention that since i've been on Apple since 1989, I never had a virus. I bought NOrton Anti Virus out of ignorance once inthe 90's and once in but promptly took it off the puters, unnecessary.
If I were you, I'd have started off with the top of the line G5 2.1ghz 20" iMac (with iSight) and a 14" 1.42ghz iBook. You understand, these are the top of the line of the great PowerPC line of Apple products. It's like buying a 1989 560SL Mercedes (last year) or a 1968 Mustang convertible. I'd ask Apple for a trade 'em in for your rev a machines at least until Rev C Mactels.
Ohhh, Rev A!
I guess I wasn't watching carefully or listening intently when they explained that part in the commercials. Did anyone else hear Mac-dude explain that I would be buying a "Rev A" product and should expect it to fail within three months? Maybe that's what he was saying in Japanese with Camera-chick.
This "Rev A" excuse doesn't hold water. See, had I known that I might not have bought a Mac at all. And if it's true I should expect my $2000 to buy a broken toaster then I also expect Apple to replace it, not make up excuses. As far as that goes, they should pay me to QC their products.
Sorry about your luck but you bought Rev. A machines. The only Rev A machine I ever bought from Apple was the Titanium (tibook) 400mhz G4 Powerbook in August of 2001. Three years later, almost to the day the warranty ended, Apple replaced almost the whole machine under Applecare. That was about my only trouble with Apple, and the problem with the machine was that I was really scared and all thumbs when it came to putting in a stick of memory -- broke the holders and they sent a whole new logic board. That machine is still going strong, with a DayStar CPU upgrade, in a friend's office, and it's got years left in her.
Three of my friends still are on 1998 and 1999 iMacs, going strong with new harddrives only. Two of my other friends are on 2001 and 2000 year iMacs -- one with the same hard drive. Two friends are on 2001/2000 iBooks, going strong. My sister and two other friends are on year 2002 iMacs. All kicking butt. Personally, I prefer my year 2002 667mhz VGA Titanium Powerbook (on it right now) to my other machines and will be upgrading the CPU to 1.2ghz in a few months at Daystar. All to say that Apple makes kickbutt machines. Sorry about your luck. Oh, and again, forgot to mention that since i've been on Apple since 1989, I never had a virus. I bought NOrton Anti Virus out of ignorance once inthe 90's and once in but promptly took it off the puters, unnecessary.
If I were you, I'd have started off with the top of the line G5 2.1ghz 20" iMac (with iSight) and a 14" 1.42ghz iBook. You understand, these are the top of the line of the great PowerPC line of Apple products. It's like buying a 1989 560SL Mercedes (last year) or a 1968 Mustang convertible. I'd ask Apple for a trade 'em in for your rev a machines at least until Rev C Mactels.
Ohhh, Rev A!
I guess I wasn't watching carefully or listening intently when they explained that part in the commercials. Did anyone else hear Mac-dude explain that I would be buying a "Rev A" product and should expect it to fail within three months? Maybe that's what he was saying in Japanese with Camera-chick.
This "Rev A" excuse doesn't hold water. See, had I known that I might not have bought a Mac at all. And if it's true I should expect my $2000 to buy a broken toaster then I also expect Apple to replace it, not make up excuses. As far as that goes, they should pay me to QC their products.
SuperCachetes
Mar 5, 07:30 PM
The same model applies to the 'church'.
They are on the wane, and need new conscripts.
Gays are less likely to give them that.
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
They are on the wane, and need new conscripts.
Gays are less likely to give them that.
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
Roessnakhan
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
So what is next year the year of? Phones again let me guess
Yeah, probably.
Yeah, probably.
cmaier
Apr 19, 08:12 PM
Me, Urg, first caveman to make rock round! Michelin and Firestone steal idea!
Sorry. Your patent expired many thousands of years ago.
Sorry. Your patent expired many thousands of years ago.
Funkymonk
Mar 22, 05:16 PM
man I may pick up the samsung 10.1. similar specs +thinner and lighter than the ipad + honeycomb? sign my ass up!
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:41 PM
You guys are looking about a $500.00 phone...atleast.
I would add
clip art fishing rod.
clip art fish hook. rod
Free Fishing Clipart Images,
Download Clip Art Fish at Clip
I would add
Tones2
Apr 11, 01:23 PM
The iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone in the market, so not surprising.
As for people expecting a 4" screen on the next iPhone dream on. They are not going to make an iPhone with a bigger screen.
To me, it's much more likely that the iPhone 5 will have a 4"+ screen than it is to have 64GB or 4G, although given Apple's increasing tendancy to underwhelm us with new technology features (which are in fact old by the time of their introduction 1-2 years after everyone else), I doubt we get any of these three.
Tony
As for people expecting a 4" screen on the next iPhone dream on. They are not going to make an iPhone with a bigger screen.
To me, it's much more likely that the iPhone 5 will have a 4"+ screen than it is to have 64GB or 4G, although given Apple's increasing tendancy to underwhelm us with new technology features (which are in fact old by the time of their introduction 1-2 years after everyone else), I doubt we get any of these three.
Tony
(L)
Sep 19, 02:42 AM
If all MBPs came with a gig of RAM standard, DL DVD drives, and a better graphics card (and Merom CPU), I would be thrilled.
Look, I don't mean to pick on anybody, and I'm sure this is valid and relevant, but just about anybody would love to see things get generally better. Like, I wish the MacBooks were as fast as the Mac Pros and weigh in at 1 lb. Realistically, while I do agree that MBP's would make sense with 1gb ram standard, I'm not so sure about the other updates. As for updating the CPU, Apple does well to keep up on the technology so long as they can afford to, even if it is the operating system that draws most new users, and I do think they will update it soon, at least for MBPs. But, this is to stay competitive and to offer a pro model that can really be used as a pro model - not to thrill consumers with just how much they can upgrade the machines.
Look, I don't mean to pick on anybody, and I'm sure this is valid and relevant, but just about anybody would love to see things get generally better. Like, I wish the MacBooks were as fast as the Mac Pros and weigh in at 1 lb. Realistically, while I do agree that MBP's would make sense with 1gb ram standard, I'm not so sure about the other updates. As for updating the CPU, Apple does well to keep up on the technology so long as they can afford to, even if it is the operating system that draws most new users, and I do think they will update it soon, at least for MBPs. But, this is to stay competitive and to offer a pro model that can really be used as a pro model - not to thrill consumers with just how much they can upgrade the machines.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 08:23 PM
Hey Multimedia, Do you record HDTV with EyeTV 500 then encode to H.264 using Handbrake and then do you add it to itunes to manage and organize those shows or movies?
I think this is a neat idea with you have the spare HD room and want to keep shows or events for long time and want to access it fast and easy.I don't use H.264 because the previous max res allowed to go on an iPod with it was 320x240 which would upscale to a TV poorly. Now I will continue to not use it because the file sizes are more than twice what I can make without it.
The author of Handbrake is going to have to make some changes to it before we can use H.264 judiciously. I currently use the FFmpeg 2-pass encoding at bitrates around 750kbps for SD @ 544x400 and 1000kbps @ 624x352 for HD. These are dimensions that fall within the upper limit pixel count that will still load and play on an iPod 230,000. This way they upsacle to a TV well and still play on iPod.
I don't use iTunes much. I am burning DVDs of all these files. 12 one hour shows fit on a DVD @ 351 per 42 minute Ads edited out episode. Movies I can get to 702MB - one CD size each. Personal message me if you need more details.
I think this is a neat idea with you have the spare HD room and want to keep shows or events for long time and want to access it fast and easy.I don't use H.264 because the previous max res allowed to go on an iPod with it was 320x240 which would upscale to a TV poorly. Now I will continue to not use it because the file sizes are more than twice what I can make without it.
The author of Handbrake is going to have to make some changes to it before we can use H.264 judiciously. I currently use the FFmpeg 2-pass encoding at bitrates around 750kbps for SD @ 544x400 and 1000kbps @ 624x352 for HD. These are dimensions that fall within the upper limit pixel count that will still load and play on an iPod 230,000. This way they upsacle to a TV well and still play on iPod.
I don't use iTunes much. I am burning DVDs of all these files. 12 one hour shows fit on a DVD @ 351 per 42 minute Ads edited out episode. Movies I can get to 702MB - one CD size each. Personal message me if you need more details.
Doctor Q
Apr 25, 04:26 PM
Nike+iPod must be an even more serious privacy violation. After all, it knows how fast I'm going and my calories burned. And it sends the data to nikeplus.com! :eek:
Yeah, both iPhone/iPod and Nike+iPod store the information only on my device and sync it only to my other devices, sending it elsewhere only if I want. But if I can make money by suing about it then I'll ignore those inconvenient facts!
Yeah, both iPhone/iPod and Nike+iPod store the information only on my device and sync it only to my other devices, sending it elsewhere only if I want. But if I can make money by suing about it then I'll ignore those inconvenient facts!
appleguy123
Feb 28, 06:32 PM
Where did I say he could not have an opinion? All I said was that his opinion should have no bearing on my life.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
I acknowledge that I misspoke. Opinions like this should be checked. Carry on.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
I acknowledge that I misspoke. Opinions like this should be checked. Carry on.
TheManOfSilver
Aug 27, 08:57 PM
I think im gonna wait and buy in 2007 with leopard and iLife 07 :rolleyes:
That's my plan (if I can hold out until then) ... as much as I'm dying to get my hands on an iMac right now, having an upgraded iMac and an upgraded OS will be that much better.
That's my plan (if I can hold out until then) ... as much as I'm dying to get my hands on an iMac right now, having an upgraded iMac and an upgraded OS will be that much better.
gekko513
Jul 15, 01:24 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
hobo.hopkins
Apr 25, 02:12 PM
Its none of your business what things I'm involved in and want hidden. Its my right to privacy so back off.
That's why the information is stored locally and can't be accessed by third parties. The information IS private. Unless a device of yours is stolen, in which case almost anything can be done or accessed.
That's why the information is stored locally and can't be accessed by third parties. The information IS private. Unless a device of yours is stolen, in which case almost anything can be done or accessed.
ergle2
Sep 14, 08:42 PM
I think you're a bit arse-about-face there. Someone else has already pointed out the differences between XP and Windows 2003 aren't trivial, so I won't go into that. However, if you're sufficient vintage, you should remember the "outrage" when someone demonstrated that you could turn NT 4 Workstation into NT 4 Server (including the boot and login screens) just by changing a few Registry settings (although the part that usually doesn't get said is that those Registry settings then triggered a whole range of different tuning settings for the scheduler, memory management, etc). NT 3.5 & 3.51 were the same, and IIRC, NT 3.1 didn't even have a "Server" version.
The comments about separate platforms in the NT era I took to refer to NT3.x/4 vs Win9x.
Quite a few bits of XP Pro functionality can be enabled in XP home with some minor hex editing, too.
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
The comments about separate platforms in the NT era I took to refer to NT3.x/4 vs Win9x.
Quite a few bits of XP Pro functionality can be enabled in XP home with some minor hex editing, too.
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
No comments:
Post a Comment