Reach
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:55 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
This shouldnt be about finger pointing.
The issues are real and we are in a dire need for a solution...fast.
One thing is sure though, the difference in enviromental cost between the "greenest" computer and the worst computer is insignificant in the big picture. There are much more urgent enviromental issues that we need to handle.
Knowing how many well-educated people there are in enviromental movement, Greenpeace's statement sounds, to me, more like a cry for additional funding than a cry to save the planet.
This shouldnt be about finger pointing.
The issues are real and we are in a dire need for a solution...fast.
One thing is sure though, the difference in enviromental cost between the "greenest" computer and the worst computer is insignificant in the big picture. There are much more urgent enviromental issues that we need to handle.
Knowing how many well-educated people there are in enviromental movement, Greenpeace's statement sounds, to me, more like a cry for additional funding than a cry to save the planet.
fewture
Jul 12, 11:15 AM
have to agree with Manik and generik,
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.
Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.
Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.
Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.
Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:51 AM
The iPad is a companion device and not a true PC. I know people here will disagree with me since the numbers help Apple so much, but they just shouldn't be included with these numbers.
redAPPLE
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
where is the pre-order list, where i can register? :D
theBB
Jul 12, 12:38 PM
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units, we may be in for a rather large increase at the higher end on up. Intel processors cost more than G4/G5 processors. The high end of any processor costs a lot more than the slower ones of the same type. Does all of this add up to price decreases or price increases? As much as I would like to see a price decrease, to me that just does not add up.
The only G5 machine replaced by an Intel version has been iMac and its price stayed the same.
The only G5 machine replaced by an Intel version has been iMac and its price stayed the same.
spipenge
Jun 27, 02:22 AM
I find it such a shame about the the low standards we as Americans have for our mobile providers. I see many people with the satisfaction of AT&T around the country, that they have no connection problems. Here is the problem. We are so accustomed to saying that signal strength is the be all and end all. The next question should be network speed. Case in point, I have family in Ottawa in Canada. He did a speedtest, during a weekday, and was getting 5.8 - 6.0 Mbps download speeds on Rogers and Fido networks. What do I get in NYC the fastest? On a good day 2.0 Mbps. The same morning he sent me his results from Ottawa I did a test and received 54 kbps. That's right...dial up speed. The fact is that we do not demand fast speeds as they have have in other places throughout the world, Europe, many parts of Asia and, yes, Canada. There is a reason for this: no competition. I can speak of Canada because of family there: there are multiple carriers there that will support the frequency the iPhone is on. Here, it is only AT&T. Many report using iPhone on T-Mobile with an unlocked phone, but, as I understand it, you can only used Edge on T-Mobile because of the different frequency. In other words, only 2G speeds.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:18 PM
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
kultschar
Apr 9, 05:00 AM
Not been impressed with control system for certain games on ios however Dead Space on the iPad 2 impresses me graphics wise and a step in the right direction control wise but still a little clunky.
Surely a matter of time before we will start playing apps on our Apple TVs with a special controller of some sort!
Surely a matter of time before we will start playing apps on our Apple TVs with a special controller of some sort!
fehhkk
Mar 18, 12:44 PM
Carriers don't seem to understand that if you consume your 2GB data allowance in one day, it's actually better for them, because they will get your for overages :D
Stupid AT&T.
On a separate note, I don't think I mind paying $20 for an extra 2GB of data. I was paying $59.99 for a Verizon USB data stick for a 5GB/mo. plan... So, since I don't tether that much, it seems adequate, *AND* I can switch off the tethering plan as I need it (without getting into a 2 year contract for just a USB data stick).
Stupid AT&T.
On a separate note, I don't think I mind paying $20 for an extra 2GB of data. I was paying $59.99 for a Verizon USB data stick for a 5GB/mo. plan... So, since I don't tether that much, it seems adequate, *AND* I can switch off the tethering plan as I need it (without getting into a 2 year contract for just a USB data stick).
Lau
Aug 29, 04:52 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
It's definitely true that educating people how to (and actually convincing them to) make a difference is incredibly important. And I'm not a huge fan of Greenpeace, but if the figures are true, Apple (along with a lot of other companies could do better, and should.
However, I think environmentalists should be pointing fingers everywhere. At the same time. In my opinion, half the reason we're in this state is people saying "Well, big compainies pollute, so why should I care", "Well, other countries pollute, so there's no point in me bothering", "Well, the supermarket's easier to shop at, so it's not my fault", etc. If we all just got on with it, at the same time, without worrying about whether so and so was better or worse, we'd be a hell of a lot better off.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
It's definitely true that educating people how to (and actually convincing them to) make a difference is incredibly important. And I'm not a huge fan of Greenpeace, but if the figures are true, Apple (along with a lot of other companies could do better, and should.
However, I think environmentalists should be pointing fingers everywhere. At the same time. In my opinion, half the reason we're in this state is people saying "Well, big compainies pollute, so why should I care", "Well, other countries pollute, so there's no point in me bothering", "Well, the supermarket's easier to shop at, so it's not my fault", etc. If we all just got on with it, at the same time, without worrying about whether so and so was better or worse, we'd be a hell of a lot better off.
bludragon06
Sep 11, 10:54 AM
I have not read the whole thread here but I must say coming from an iPhone 3g to the iPhone 4 is a night and day difference. I love my iPhone 4. I think since I have had it I have had about 5 total dropped calls. I have had it since late July. I had that many dropped calls in a day with my 3g. I just had to add this in cause I see people complain about the same thing all the time. Dropped call this and dropped call that. Frankly I don't see it. Maybe I just have the super iPhone. LOL! Just my .02 worth!
-Dave
-Dave
starflyer
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
milo
Jul 13, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
KindredMAC
Jul 11, 11:37 PM
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
crees!
Aug 29, 12:41 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). And do I care? Nah. Not one bit.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:05 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:15 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Well I dont want to "cheat" ATT out of anything.
I want to pay for 2gb and use 2gb.
Why in the f*&# should I have to pay $20 dollars MORE for 2gb of data I DONT WANT?
People on tiered data plans should not have to pay for tethering, period. Its ridiculous.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Well I dont want to "cheat" ATT out of anything.
I want to pay for 2gb and use 2gb.
Why in the f*&# should I have to pay $20 dollars MORE for 2gb of data I DONT WANT?
People on tiered data plans should not have to pay for tethering, period. Its ridiculous.
tkermit
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
Good to see :)
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 07:32 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 10:23 AM
Contrary to what many people are saying here, I don't think PVR is Apple's stratedgy. PVR woud have to be based on a subscription model, and Apple has shown us for years now that it won't have it that way.
First of all, with subscription models, Apple doesn't have a constant income vs content distributed ratio. They'll lose money on those who use it a lot and only *maybe* gain on those who don't. This is as opposed to the current model where Apple earns a lot of money on those who use it a lot, not as much on those who don't, but are least it's the same rate, no matter who you are. Non-subscription models offer more freedom.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to watch a show, Apple wants you to buy it from them at full price. That way they don't have to deal with whoever might be watching a ton of shows vs those who aren't. They ensure their profitability this way.
...and when it comes to iTunes Music, their profit margins are slim to begin with.
-Clive
First of all, with subscription models, Apple doesn't have a constant income vs content distributed ratio. They'll lose money on those who use it a lot and only *maybe* gain on those who don't. This is as opposed to the current model where Apple earns a lot of money on those who use it a lot, not as much on those who don't, but are least it's the same rate, no matter who you are. Non-subscription models offer more freedom.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to watch a show, Apple wants you to buy it from them at full price. That way they don't have to deal with whoever might be watching a ton of shows vs those who aren't. They ensure their profitability this way.
...and when it comes to iTunes Music, their profit margins are slim to begin with.
-Clive
JediZenMaster
Mar 18, 10:34 AM
I'm happy AT&T did this because i'm a firm believer that you should pay for what you consume. I know people may disagree but don't complain to me just deal with AT&T.
Happy Tethering :p
Happy Tethering :p
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:11 PM
What? Oh please. That's simply not true. How the hell could you have kids if you were ALL called to chastity?
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
No comments:
Post a Comment