Alx9876
Apr 6, 01:27 PM
What a joke of a tablet. Nothing but a piece of crap.
daneoni
Sep 19, 03:34 AM
Well Duh. As there will be a MacPro update, iPhone, (possibly) true video iPod and Leopard as well as iTV launch at MWSF
nilk
Apr 6, 03:07 PM
For a programmer dealing with Terminal, Xcode, Netbeans, Eclipse, etc (not graphic intensive softwares), would this macbook air be a better deal than the 13/15" Macbook pro?
Anyone?
The main thing keeping me from wanting a MBA for software development is the 4GB RAM limit. If you're not running any virtual machines you'd probably do just fine with 4GB, but as soon as you need to run a Windows VM things will get painful (especially if you're running Visual Studio in it).
If could get a MBA with 8GB of RAM and Thunderbolt I would get it instead of a MBP for my next machine, at least if the MBP stays the way it is (16GB of RAM option on a MBP would change things for me; I'll take all the RAM I can get).
Edit: One minor thing to note is that the 13" MBA has the 13" MBP beat on screen resolution. That's completely silly considering the MBP updates came well after the MBA updates.
Anyone?
The main thing keeping me from wanting a MBA for software development is the 4GB RAM limit. If you're not running any virtual machines you'd probably do just fine with 4GB, but as soon as you need to run a Windows VM things will get painful (especially if you're running Visual Studio in it).
If could get a MBA with 8GB of RAM and Thunderbolt I would get it instead of a MBP for my next machine, at least if the MBP stays the way it is (16GB of RAM option on a MBP would change things for me; I'll take all the RAM I can get).
Edit: One minor thing to note is that the 13" MBA has the 13" MBP beat on screen resolution. That's completely silly considering the MBP updates came well after the MBA updates.
SuperCachetes
Mar 1, 10:48 AM
I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
Negative consequences? :rolleyes:
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
Endangering themselves? And a Catholic website as backup? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Wow. Just wow.
At least we're back to the childhood anecdotes again - so in between reading all the ignorant, antiquated, religion-clouded bollocks you are spewing, we can find a little entertainment value.
Negative consequences? :rolleyes:
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
Endangering themselves? And a Catholic website as backup? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Wow. Just wow.
At least we're back to the childhood anecdotes again - so in between reading all the ignorant, antiquated, religion-clouded bollocks you are spewing, we can find a little entertainment value.
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:46 PM
Motorola had iDEN well before Apple had an iPhone. Apple copied the i just like they did the Beatle's logo. They are he innovators of copying. But it's ok when they do it.
Motorola wasn't the first company to create an iProduct and using an Apple may have infringed on The Beatles' production company's logo (not The Beatles' logo) but it was not a US company. Do you really think that Jobs got the idea for using the Apple name from The Beatles?
Motorola wasn't the first company to create an iProduct and using an Apple may have infringed on The Beatles' production company's logo (not The Beatles' logo) but it was not a US company. Do you really think that Jobs got the idea for using the Apple name from The Beatles?
Lincoln
Aug 6, 02:17 PM
Was just trying to price out an IMac on the Apple store and the option of upgrade the keyboard/mouse to a wireless version was gone??
Something new in the offing to be announced tomorrow perhaps??
I think that the option disappeared when the wireless Mighty Mouse came out.
Something new in the offing to be announced tomorrow perhaps??
I think that the option disappeared when the wireless Mighty Mouse came out.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:24 AM
New MacPro rev2.
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
mrsir2009
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
Good for them.
bretm
Apr 25, 03:51 PM
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
Except it doesn't use GPS data. It uses cell towers and wifi.
Except it doesn't use GPS data. It uses cell towers and wifi.
remboursemoi11
Apr 8, 02:26 AM
I heard galaxy tab is better than Ipad. Is it true??
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:07 PM
Not bad for a $800 dollar device, available for one carrier. I wonder what the numbers will look like after the late march wifi-only.
At least 100k people know what its like to have a really FUNCTIONAL Tablet.
please tell me! what defines a functional tablet
At least 100k people know what its like to have a really FUNCTIONAL Tablet.
please tell me! what defines a functional tablet
Zadillo
Aug 27, 05:38 PM
Hey for what its worth, i understand where you're coming from Zadillo BUT some people still find the joke funny and therefore it deserves to be told.
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
grue
Apr 11, 08:42 PM
Oh, and this is a more minor gripe, btu they need to pull their heads out of their asses and fix their volume licensing program, it's rubbish.
smokeyboi
Jul 20, 11:14 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?
michaelrjohnson
Jul 27, 10:03 AM
Rule 1 of Apple Events:
You never get all the marbles.
Very very wise, Chundles. You are correct.
(In other words, they're always disappointing on some level to someone.) :)
You never get all the marbles.
Very very wise, Chundles. You are correct.
(In other words, they're always disappointing on some level to someone.) :)
MacRumors
Mar 25, 10:25 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/25/apple-already-nearing-golden-master-candidate-versions-of-mac-os-x-lion/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/25/232441-lion_mission_control.jpg
Short Hair Round Face
selena gomez curly hair
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/25/232441-lion_mission_control.jpg
shamino
Jul 22, 12:18 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
MacRumorUser
Nov 26, 05:42 PM
Hired it. Meh. It's not going to win any new audience. Car damage is still a joke and the idea of a racing simulation that still feels like I'm driving a bumper car for the most part just leaves me cold. I won't be buying and I'm glad I hired.
smitty330
Aug 11, 04:30 PM
These iPhone rumours continue to persist. I admit to being a sceptic, but maybe I'm wrong! I just hope that if they do do it, they do it well.
How dare you. Since when does apple release a product that is not up to par or even above. Of course they will do it good, it is apple. It is going to be amazing i can just feel it!
-Matthew
How dare you. Since when does apple release a product that is not up to par or even above. Of course they will do it good, it is apple. It is going to be amazing i can just feel it!
-Matthew
Squire
Jul 14, 08:50 PM
Macs have ALREADY had two optical bays (including twin CD drives). And none of these configs include two drives, you'd only have a second one if you wanted it.
*bold added
Where have you been shopping recently? Only one model PowerMac has ever had two optical drive bay.
The MDD G4 PowerMac towers (August 2002-June 2004) have two optical drive bays. The G4 PowerMacs that came before only have one (the lower bay is only big enough for floppy-size devices, like zip drives.) The G5 PowerMacs only have one externally-accessible bay of any size.
I would love the ability to install two optical drives, but your claim that Apple is currently shipping this somewhere is simply not true.
I think a brush-up lesson on the present perfect tense is in order. :D
Case designers aren't perfect, but they aren't idiots either. Some PCs have power supplies on top, despite the top heaviness and the extra path for the power cable. What's the reason? There must be some tradeoff involved or they'd never build them that way.
Good point. I just realized that my PC case has its power supply on the top. It's just a cheap-o case and it has never fallen over. I've never noticed any top-heaviness, as a matter of fact. In addition, the positioning of the cord hasn't caused any problems. In fact, it might actually be a better position for me-- while there is clutter on both sides of the box, there's nothing on top, making it easy to unplug.
-Squire
P.S. greenstork, where did your 'tar go? It's always been one of my favorites.
*bold added
Where have you been shopping recently? Only one model PowerMac has ever had two optical drive bay.
The MDD G4 PowerMac towers (August 2002-June 2004) have two optical drive bays. The G4 PowerMacs that came before only have one (the lower bay is only big enough for floppy-size devices, like zip drives.) The G5 PowerMacs only have one externally-accessible bay of any size.
I would love the ability to install two optical drives, but your claim that Apple is currently shipping this somewhere is simply not true.
I think a brush-up lesson on the present perfect tense is in order. :D
Case designers aren't perfect, but they aren't idiots either. Some PCs have power supplies on top, despite the top heaviness and the extra path for the power cable. What's the reason? There must be some tradeoff involved or they'd never build them that way.
Good point. I just realized that my PC case has its power supply on the top. It's just a cheap-o case and it has never fallen over. I've never noticed any top-heaviness, as a matter of fact. In addition, the positioning of the cord hasn't caused any problems. In fact, it might actually be a better position for me-- while there is clutter on both sides of the box, there's nothing on top, making it easy to unplug.
-Squire
P.S. greenstork, where did your 'tar go? It's always been one of my favorites.
TheKrillr
Aug 26, 11:33 PM
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
gregorypierce
Apr 11, 02:31 AM
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make their banner graphic...
It probably looks great when in motion on a TV screen.....
hey I tried :)
It probably looks great when in motion on a TV screen.....
hey I tried :)
Sky Blue
Mar 26, 11:02 AM
what $500 product?
OS X Server
OS X Server
No comments:
Post a Comment