Raid
Apr 29, 09:35 AM
Labelling birthers as racist, paranoid, or nutters is just pandering to the distraction of all this. The persistence of this "issue" could be more of a logical desire to belittle or erode the political power of the current president; which is akin to schoolyard gossiping, sure, but it's still strangely effective.
Now back to the birthing show!
Now back to the birthing show!
Banjhiyi
Mar 26, 04:49 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)
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
This might explain the shambles that is 10.6.7.
Last release before Lion - semi-brick your machine to force an upgrade.
iOS 4.3, last release before iPhone 5 - murder your battery to force an upgrade.
You've guessed it, I'm not very happy with Apple at the moment. So which is it; underhand tactics, sloppy Q&A or declining standards?
akatsuki
Apr 6, 10:36 AM
Thunderbolt and new CPUs would make me buy on day one.
Reach9
Apr 11, 02:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Lol, Power of Hardware? Then where is the android Retina Display device?
I Don't Care about dual Core mobile processors. And neither do the 90% Not-Nerd-customers.
Personally, a bigger screen > Retina Display.
Lol, Power of Hardware? Then where is the android Retina Display device?
I Don't Care about dual Core mobile processors. And neither do the 90% Not-Nerd-customers.
Personally, a bigger screen > Retina Display.
bankshot
Aug 7, 07:12 PM
As others have said, Time Machine is likely either a direct port of Sun's ZFS, or an equivalent implementation in HFS+. Actually, that's an interesting point -- if it's ZFS, it'll require a reformat in order to use it. If they did it themselves in HFS+, that's a lot more useful for anything besides brand new machines. Though ZFS is a much more modern design, despite all the things Apple's done to extend HFS+ in recent years (journaling, case-sensitive option, etc). Might be good to make a clean break and move forward.
Anyway, no real surprise there, unless you count the fancy glitz that Apple put on top of it. And of course, who's surprised when they do that? ;)
What I'd like to know more about is Spotlight. It was one of the most disappointing features in Tiger for me. It was supposed to revolutionize how you use the computer, but it turned out to be extremely slow and almost useless to me. I suggested from day one -- in fact from the day Steve demoed Tiger at WWDC in 2004 -- that Spotlight should not only index your online drives, but also network drives and offline media (backup CDs and DVDs). The latter two are far more useful to me personally, as I have data scattered across several different computers and on dozens of backups.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
Also, will they add indexing of offline media? There's no mention of it on the Leopard Spotlight page. Do I still have time to suggest it (again)? Hmmm....
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret? Maybe they might not get done in time for release, and therefore Apple doesn't want to look bad like MS pulling Vista features left and right? Surely there's not enough time for a competitor to steal the idea and get it out before Apple does? Even if "next spring" means early June... That's no time at all in large scale software projects.
Anyway, no real surprise there, unless you count the fancy glitz that Apple put on top of it. And of course, who's surprised when they do that? ;)
What I'd like to know more about is Spotlight. It was one of the most disappointing features in Tiger for me. It was supposed to revolutionize how you use the computer, but it turned out to be extremely slow and almost useless to me. I suggested from day one -- in fact from the day Steve demoed Tiger at WWDC in 2004 -- that Spotlight should not only index your online drives, but also network drives and offline media (backup CDs and DVDs). The latter two are far more useful to me personally, as I have data scattered across several different computers and on dozens of backups.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
Also, will they add indexing of offline media? There's no mention of it on the Leopard Spotlight page. Do I still have time to suggest it (again)? Hmmm....
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret? Maybe they might not get done in time for release, and therefore Apple doesn't want to look bad like MS pulling Vista features left and right? Surely there's not enough time for a competitor to steal the idea and get it out before Apple does? Even if "next spring" means early June... That's no time at all in large scale software projects.
DJsteveSD
Mar 31, 02:59 PM
you keep using that word� (http://cl.ly/0x032o272d2a3g1t1k3d)
lol
lol
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 05:54 AM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:06 PM
When I first saw this feature I thought great. I do regular back ups, but some of my AW docs keep corrupting (probably something to do with keep duplicating the same old document and modifying rather than starting anew). Time Machine will help me no end. I was also thrilled that windows had nothing like this........ until I read through these posts.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
anthonymoody
Apr 8, 08:14 AM
Aren't retail stores in the business of, you know, making sales? Why the F would they artificially limit the sales of a given product? Makes zero sense unless they just wanted to be douchey and keep people returning day after day to drive up foot traffic and hope for other spillover sales foam impulse purchases. But could that be worth all that much?
Reminds me of a true story - went into one of those pre-made sandwich shops because I need to feed a horde unexpectedly, and quickly. I asked for all their stock of three different kinds of sandwich. The woman behind the counter said "but sir what will we sell to other people!".
Bizarre way to run a business.
Reminds me of a true story - went into one of those pre-made sandwich shops because I need to feed a horde unexpectedly, and quickly. I asked for all their stock of three different kinds of sandwich. The woman behind the counter said "but sir what will we sell to other people!".
Bizarre way to run a business.
maverick18x
Aug 5, 03:43 PM
I heard a rumour somewhere of an all metallic ipod nano, can anyone else tell me if they have heard anything similar.
The rumor that we'd see new nanos at WWDC was first written about by ThinkSecret. They've recently gone back on their claim and suggestted a Setember timeframe.
Personally, I highly doubt we'll see ANY iPod/iTunes updates here... WWDC is historically a developer/pro event and not a consumer event. Plus, Apple is still clearing inventory by giving away nanos to college students who purchase a Mac (ends October 16th). I feel like any new iPods will get their own special event, in the October to November timeframe.
My Predictions for WWDC
Headliners:
- Leopard Preview (VMware Demo?)
- Mac Pro (Quad-core Xenon?)
- Cinema Display Updates (iSight? +30"?)
- "One More Thing..." (Something Unexpected)
Without much fanfare:
- Core 2 Duo Updates (MacBook Pro? iMac?)
- Xserve Updates (Quad-core Xenon?)
The rumor that we'd see new nanos at WWDC was first written about by ThinkSecret. They've recently gone back on their claim and suggestted a Setember timeframe.
Personally, I highly doubt we'll see ANY iPod/iTunes updates here... WWDC is historically a developer/pro event and not a consumer event. Plus, Apple is still clearing inventory by giving away nanos to college students who purchase a Mac (ends October 16th). I feel like any new iPods will get their own special event, in the October to November timeframe.
My Predictions for WWDC
Headliners:
- Leopard Preview (VMware Demo?)
- Mac Pro (Quad-core Xenon?)
- Cinema Display Updates (iSight? +30"?)
- "One More Thing..." (Something Unexpected)
Without much fanfare:
- Core 2 Duo Updates (MacBook Pro? iMac?)
- Xserve Updates (Quad-core Xenon?)
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
Peace
Jul 27, 10:10 AM
Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.
Like the 30th Anniversary Mac ;)
Like the 30th Anniversary Mac ;)
brianus
Sep 13, 10:05 AM
probably due to latency involved in distributing the load across the two processors. that's the same problem a single Clovertown would have. Only true quads wouldn't suffer from these problems (earliest seems to be Harpertown in don't know if there are any non-MCM Xeons scheduled before then)
What about Tigerton (2007)? Isn't that a "true" quad?
What about Tigerton (2007)? Isn't that a "true" quad?
FF_productions
Aug 15, 11:34 AM
Check it out!
http://barefeats.com/quad06.html
The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!
http://barefeats.com/quad06.html
The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!
gnasher729
Jul 27, 10:07 AM
So since these new mobile chips are pin-compatible with the Yonah chips (like the one in my MBP), will it be easy/possible to simply buy one and upgrade myself?
With things like this, my rule is: If you have to ask, then you can't do it :-(
At the very least, you have to open your MacBook, get access to the processor, remove it, put in a new ones. But laptops are not built to be opened, and the processor is most definitely not intented to be swapped, so you might have to take an awful lot of things apart. Now taking it apart is the easy part, putting all the things back together again with everything fitting and nothing left over, that is the more difficult part.
It is one thing to try these things with a cheap MacMini, especially if your goal is not to have a faster MacMini, but an impressive webpage. Risking a $2000 MacBook Pro is quite another thing. Better to sell your MacBook/MacBook Pro on eBay and buy a new one.
With things like this, my rule is: If you have to ask, then you can't do it :-(
At the very least, you have to open your MacBook, get access to the processor, remove it, put in a new ones. But laptops are not built to be opened, and the processor is most definitely not intented to be swapped, so you might have to take an awful lot of things apart. Now taking it apart is the easy part, putting all the things back together again with everything fitting and nothing left over, that is the more difficult part.
It is one thing to try these things with a cheap MacMini, especially if your goal is not to have a faster MacMini, but an impressive webpage. Risking a $2000 MacBook Pro is quite another thing. Better to sell your MacBook/MacBook Pro on eBay and buy a new one.
koobcamuk
Mar 25, 10:36 PM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
I agree entirely.
I also think 10.4.11 is the best OS ever.
Just what I think anyway.
I agree entirely.
I also think 10.4.11 is the best OS ever.
Teddy's
Nov 28, 07:35 PM
Universal could make their OWN player... one that only plays Universal music, downloads from Universal.com or some ***** like that, rips cds from universal only, and charge$$ for EVERY TIME an individual plays the song"
OH, I think that would be the dream of those CEO's.
Yeah, a dream made in HELL!!! (by lawyers)
I'm really :mad:
Edit: I thought that universal would be that label that has less control over musicians creativity... I know some indie bands who have stated that once in while...
OH, I think that would be the dream of those CEO's.
Yeah, a dream made in HELL!!! (by lawyers)
I'm really :mad:
Edit: I thought that universal would be that label that has less control over musicians creativity... I know some indie bands who have stated that once in while...
parapup
Apr 11, 11:46 AM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition - Apple waiting until September would mean they rely awful lot on people's stupidity to keep buying it for 8 more months!
That ain't gonna happen - we will see a dual core iPhone 5 by June shipping by July or something (followed by shortages and long waits.)!
That ain't gonna happen - we will see a dual core iPhone 5 by June shipping by July or something (followed by shortages and long waits.)!
gorgeousninja
Mar 22, 08:43 PM
This is just a preview of the future, Android based tablets will clean the iPads clock. Apple made the so-called iPad 2 as a 1.5. Low res camera, not enough RAM, and low res screen. It's going to be a verrrry long 2012 for Apple. Sure it's selling like hot cakes now, but when buyers see tablets that they don't have to stand inline for, that have better equipment and are cheaper ... Apples house of cards will come crashing down around them.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
All hail the unicorn rider!
It's great that you're such a fan of imitators and snake-oil products cos a lot of manufacturers are counting on the fact some people are so gullible.
I know the strategy of throwing enough mud hoping some of it will stick, but you've called 'Fail' on Apple so often that it becomes just a jaded cliche...
maybe next time you could be positive about an Apple product.
Not only would the shock nearly kill us, it might put more people off buying it than the juvenile drama of proclaiming ' a world of hurt'.
ps Oh and you do realize in your post that you've admitted to the app store concept as being an Apple product do you?
That does contradict a lot of the usual haters, so you might want to confer with yourselves on how exactly Android was secretly ahead of Apple on that.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
All hail the unicorn rider!
It's great that you're such a fan of imitators and snake-oil products cos a lot of manufacturers are counting on the fact some people are so gullible.
I know the strategy of throwing enough mud hoping some of it will stick, but you've called 'Fail' on Apple so often that it becomes just a jaded cliche...
maybe next time you could be positive about an Apple product.
Not only would the shock nearly kill us, it might put more people off buying it than the juvenile drama of proclaiming ' a world of hurt'.
ps Oh and you do realize in your post that you've admitted to the app store concept as being an Apple product do you?
That does contradict a lot of the usual haters, so you might want to confer with yourselves on how exactly Android was secretly ahead of Apple on that.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 04:03 PM
"Hahaha, look at the Android tablets, they only ship 1/10 of iPads." - 12 months later: Well you know...
Yeah, good luck to Android tablets without carrier BOGO deals, Apple carrier exclusivity, and greater retail distribution than Apple. None of these factors apply in the tablet market.
I think you (and Google) are going to be disappointed.
Yeah, good luck to Android tablets without carrier BOGO deals, Apple carrier exclusivity, and greater retail distribution than Apple. None of these factors apply in the tablet market.
I think you (and Google) are going to be disappointed.
gregorsamsa
Aug 26, 07:17 AM
in my experience, their support has always sucked..even from day 1 with my first PowerMac G5 back in 2004.
Let's see...
PowerMac G5 arrived with a defective superdrive, miscalibrated fans. The genius 'couldn't hear the fans', and accidentally put the repair in someone else's name, so when I tried to pick it up, I had to haggle to get it. Oh, and when I did finally get it, the superdrive was still broken. Super...
Cinema Display arrived with 7 dead pixels...I know this is a touchy issue, but the problem with their support regarding it was that none of them knew the actual number to replace it at. The phone people told me 5, the store (after the 45 minute drive there) told me 15, and another rep (who finally replaced it) told me 3.
iMac G5 had a defective power supply on arrival--would shut off randomly, some times not turning on. They refused to acknowledge this the first time we were there...the second time we were there...third time...fourth time they gave in--by saying "we'll keep it overnight." They still.."couldn't find a problem." When they gave it back, it worked for..two weeks, then the fans started being wonky. They couldn't hear that the first or second visit, on the third visit they took it overnight, "couldn't hear any audible issue", but it shutdown on them. I guess taking our word for it, they replaced the fan assembly, logic board, and power supply. Worked for a month, now it still shuts down.
MacBook Pro had the defective battery (random shutdowns), now fixed. Also, I had the screen buzz (now fixed), CPU A Whine (now fixed). They basically fixed all the issues in this machine, but were four days over their expected return time.
I'm not saying their support is totally crap, but they're certainly not consistent in performance, technical knowledge, friendliness, or even coverage. I was talking to a friend about "what I'd do if I were Steve Jobs," and the first thing we agreed on was to fire the entire AppleCare department, and all the genius', because they all seem to suck.
But hey, my iBook G4 and MacBook are fine...
You, & some others here, have obviously had more than your fair share of bad luck with Apple. Customers paying good money rightly expect to receive faultless products every time. When they don't, it's understandable they're peeved off. In this respect, Apple must do better.
Many others, however, swear by Apple's general reliability & quality of products. (My iBook, bought only last October, is used at least a few hours almost daily. So far, no problems whatsoever!). Fact is, statistics consistently prove Apple still to be one of the best computer manufacturers when it comes to longevity of their products.
PS. I'm not an Apple fanboy. My next computer (a 15.4" laptop) may not even be another Apple. But I'm 100% sure I will buy another Apple computer in future, not least because of the general high quality I know I can expect from Apple compared to many PC manufacturers, & a wonderful OS to boot! - But, then again, if Apple's QC was to deteriorate significantly, & get a consistently growing number of customer complaints...
Let's see...
PowerMac G5 arrived with a defective superdrive, miscalibrated fans. The genius 'couldn't hear the fans', and accidentally put the repair in someone else's name, so when I tried to pick it up, I had to haggle to get it. Oh, and when I did finally get it, the superdrive was still broken. Super...
Cinema Display arrived with 7 dead pixels...I know this is a touchy issue, but the problem with their support regarding it was that none of them knew the actual number to replace it at. The phone people told me 5, the store (after the 45 minute drive there) told me 15, and another rep (who finally replaced it) told me 3.
iMac G5 had a defective power supply on arrival--would shut off randomly, some times not turning on. They refused to acknowledge this the first time we were there...the second time we were there...third time...fourth time they gave in--by saying "we'll keep it overnight." They still.."couldn't find a problem." When they gave it back, it worked for..two weeks, then the fans started being wonky. They couldn't hear that the first or second visit, on the third visit they took it overnight, "couldn't hear any audible issue", but it shutdown on them. I guess taking our word for it, they replaced the fan assembly, logic board, and power supply. Worked for a month, now it still shuts down.
MacBook Pro had the defective battery (random shutdowns), now fixed. Also, I had the screen buzz (now fixed), CPU A Whine (now fixed). They basically fixed all the issues in this machine, but were four days over their expected return time.
I'm not saying their support is totally crap, but they're certainly not consistent in performance, technical knowledge, friendliness, or even coverage. I was talking to a friend about "what I'd do if I were Steve Jobs," and the first thing we agreed on was to fire the entire AppleCare department, and all the genius', because they all seem to suck.
But hey, my iBook G4 and MacBook are fine...
You, & some others here, have obviously had more than your fair share of bad luck with Apple. Customers paying good money rightly expect to receive faultless products every time. When they don't, it's understandable they're peeved off. In this respect, Apple must do better.
Many others, however, swear by Apple's general reliability & quality of products. (My iBook, bought only last October, is used at least a few hours almost daily. So far, no problems whatsoever!). Fact is, statistics consistently prove Apple still to be one of the best computer manufacturers when it comes to longevity of their products.
PS. I'm not an Apple fanboy. My next computer (a 15.4" laptop) may not even be another Apple. But I'm 100% sure I will buy another Apple computer in future, not least because of the general high quality I know I can expect from Apple compared to many PC manufacturers, & a wonderful OS to boot! - But, then again, if Apple's QC was to deteriorate significantly, & get a consistently growing number of customer complaints...
angrynstupid
Apr 27, 08:02 AM
I actually thought looking at a history of where my phone has been on a map was kinda cool. Bummer.
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
SPUY767
Mar 26, 08:17 PM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
They haven't had the wow factor because they've been under the hood improvement releases rather than feature releases. Snow Leopard was the big one. Almost all the changes were under the hood. Lion is going to be a big feature release with a wow factor.
Just what I think anyway.
They haven't had the wow factor because they've been under the hood improvement releases rather than feature releases. Snow Leopard was the big one. Almost all the changes were under the hood. Lion is going to be a big feature release with a wow factor.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu