g4tom
Sep 26, 08:49 AM
The picture they are using as a mock up already is being sold, by LG. It is on the cover of October edition of "PC Magazine". Looks identical and has the slider hidden number pad.
Huntn
Apr 25, 09:22 AM
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
There is vision and there is execution. Our democratic system of zigging and zagging every 4 to 8 years is hurting us. And no one involved in running government even when conservatives with the stated intent of dismantling government seems to be able to remove the inefficiencies.
I see 3 paths:
1. Anarchy- no government
2. Minimalist government- handles very basics of infrastructure and laws and enforcement. When it comes to social economic issues, every person for them selves.
3. Caretaker government- takes care of everything for us.
I think we should be somewhere between #2 and 3, however this is based on an efficient government which can be argued is an oxymoron. ;) When people in economic power display morals, then less regulation is needed, otherwise you need to regulate the hell out of them. For the last 30 years we have been sliding into the realm of pure unadulterated greed. If you don't have a people oriented government acting as the referee, then you'll find yourself right back in the 1800s with the little people holding up the barrons and Captains of Industry upon their shoulders. That is not equitable imo.
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
There is vision and there is execution. Our democratic system of zigging and zagging every 4 to 8 years is hurting us. And no one involved in running government even when conservatives with the stated intent of dismantling government seems to be able to remove the inefficiencies.
I see 3 paths:
1. Anarchy- no government
2. Minimalist government- handles very basics of infrastructure and laws and enforcement. When it comes to social economic issues, every person for them selves.
3. Caretaker government- takes care of everything for us.
I think we should be somewhere between #2 and 3, however this is based on an efficient government which can be argued is an oxymoron. ;) When people in economic power display morals, then less regulation is needed, otherwise you need to regulate the hell out of them. For the last 30 years we have been sliding into the realm of pure unadulterated greed. If you don't have a people oriented government acting as the referee, then you'll find yourself right back in the 1800s with the little people holding up the barrons and Captains of Industry upon their shoulders. That is not equitable imo.
Cinch
Sep 5, 12:56 PM
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Cinch
Cinch
wwworry
Sep 9, 06:25 AM
I am curious about the iMovie benchmarks. One might think the mac pro would be over twice as fast but it's not. Is that because of software limitations in iMovie?
I am about to make a purchase of either an iMac or a 2.0Ghz. MacPro for monthly workouts in Final Cut. Hard to decide.
I am about to make a purchase of either an iMac or a 2.0Ghz. MacPro for monthly workouts in Final Cut. Hard to decide.
bbplayer5
Mar 23, 04:22 PM
No one likes drunk drivers. No one. Period. That being said, Apple should not pull the App. Speed trap apps will be next (Trapster)... Keep the app store open to everything thats legal. This is no different than a friend calling you telling you to avoid a check point. Neither is illegal.
munkery
Jan 13, 01:41 PM
There's nothing to set up. You should increase the setting to maximum when you first install Windows 7, but other than that it has nothing to do with playing games online.
You should have a unique identifier (password) attached to authentication mechanism (UAC in Windows). So, Windows users should run as standard users. But, using a standard account in Windows causes issues with some software, such as some online games, that require admin accounts (or "run as administrator"; superuser) to function. Many online games on Windows 7 still require running as Administrator (superuser privileges) to function. This requires setting the "Properties" to allow "run as Administrator" or turning off UAC. This is risky as the games connect to remote servers and download content. Trojans are installed without authentication if accessed with superuser privileges. This example, using online games, shows the problem with how software is being written for Windows. This problem lead to DLL hijacking exploits (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9181513/Hacking_toolkit_publishes_DLL_hijacking_exploit). You definitely need good antivirus software in Windows to more safely play games that require Administrator privileges.
The issue with online games found in Windows is not problematic on Mac OS X given that software for Mac is written following the guidelines of the principle of least privilege (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege) more so than Windows software. For example, I have played online FPS games on my Mac with standard account privileges that require "run as Administrator" (superuser privileges) in Windows systems. Mac OS X is much better insulated from Malware.
Flash, Adobe, Java, etc. all have virtually identical issues under all three OSes. It's rare you see something that only affects one, unless it's a significantly different program.
Vulnerabilities in those components in Mac OS X are attributed as OS X vulnerabilities because OS X includes them by default so this artificially inflates the number of vulnerabilities in OS X when looking at vulnerability comparisons. These components have worse security in Windows. How these vulnerabilities manifest in Windows is through Internet Explorer.
Canon EOS Rebel T2i This
Canon EOS Rebel T2i 18 MP CMOS
canon rebel t2i camera test
Canon EOS Digital Rebel T2i
canon rebel t2i camera test
Canon Rebel T2i Review: This
Canon Rebel T2i 18 MP Digital
Kit wise I used the camera,
canon rebel t2i camera test
Canon EOS 550D DSLR Camera
canon rebel t2i camera.
Canon just recently sold its
canon rebel t2i camera test
You should have a unique identifier (password) attached to authentication mechanism (UAC in Windows). So, Windows users should run as standard users. But, using a standard account in Windows causes issues with some software, such as some online games, that require admin accounts (or "run as administrator"; superuser) to function. Many online games on Windows 7 still require running as Administrator (superuser privileges) to function. This requires setting the "Properties" to allow "run as Administrator" or turning off UAC. This is risky as the games connect to remote servers and download content. Trojans are installed without authentication if accessed with superuser privileges. This example, using online games, shows the problem with how software is being written for Windows. This problem lead to DLL hijacking exploits (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9181513/Hacking_toolkit_publishes_DLL_hijacking_exploit). You definitely need good antivirus software in Windows to more safely play games that require Administrator privileges.
The issue with online games found in Windows is not problematic on Mac OS X given that software for Mac is written following the guidelines of the principle of least privilege (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege) more so than Windows software. For example, I have played online FPS games on my Mac with standard account privileges that require "run as Administrator" (superuser privileges) in Windows systems. Mac OS X is much better insulated from Malware.
Flash, Adobe, Java, etc. all have virtually identical issues under all three OSes. It's rare you see something that only affects one, unless it's a significantly different program.
Vulnerabilities in those components in Mac OS X are attributed as OS X vulnerabilities because OS X includes them by default so this artificially inflates the number of vulnerabilities in OS X when looking at vulnerability comparisons. These components have worse security in Windows. How these vulnerabilities manifest in Windows is through Internet Explorer.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:23 AM
Salesperson: Sir, they're only vaguely the same shape.
And I don't think "vaguely" means what you think it means.
And I don't think "vaguely" means what you think it means.
rxse7en
Jul 14, 11:14 AM
I am glad you have enough knowledge to tell me why it is silly, instead of making a silly comment yourself.
What's up with the personal insults? If you want to pay top dollar for incremental increases that's your choice. Most of us "professionals" would prefer the fastest systems available, because as we all know, time is money!
What's up with the personal insults? If you want to pay top dollar for incremental increases that's your choice. Most of us "professionals" would prefer the fastest systems available, because as we all know, time is money!
w_parietti22
Jul 14, 09:39 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.
...and Mac Mini. ;)
Thats awesome We are going to have some screaming fast macs! :D
The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.
...and Mac Mini. ;)
Thats awesome We are going to have some screaming fast macs! :D
hdsalinas
Aug 28, 03:27 PM
my cat has told me that there will be a 23" chin-less iMac with the new Core 2 Duo chips, 1gig std, wireless kbd and mouse std. Or he is just hungry - hard to tell just what he is saying but he has friends in high places (trees mostly)
still heres hoping he's spot on
This would be great.
Apple, offer the 23" screen at the same price the 20" is now and the "new" 20 with the 17�s price. Also, go ahead and surprise everyone by releasing Leopard for Christmas. Oh, and BTW, if you upgrade the memory to 1GB, make it just a single1GB stick and not two 512. (I want to be able to buy a sencond 1GB stick later on without wasting memory)
still heres hoping he's spot on
This would be great.
Apple, offer the 23" screen at the same price the 20" is now and the "new" 20 with the 17�s price. Also, go ahead and surprise everyone by releasing Leopard for Christmas. Oh, and BTW, if you upgrade the memory to 1GB, make it just a single1GB stick and not two 512. (I want to be able to buy a sencond 1GB stick later on without wasting memory)
twoodcc
Sep 26, 10:48 AM
well since i already have cingular, then this doens't bother me. bring it on :cool:
dextertangocci
Sep 26, 09:44 AM
Will it still work in South Africa???
I hope so....
I hope so....
RKpro
Apr 28, 03:52 PM
Wow, Apple is pretty much unstoppable now. And if anyone tries to get in their way, they've got a $60b war chest.
nem3015
Aug 31, 03:50 PM
If there is a Special Event then we might see the new Ipod Video and maybe the Itunes Movie Store.
To go a little crazy, maybe the Media Center.
Updates for MacMini and Laptops at this time will be a simple Tuesday update on Apple's site. I see no reason to have an Special Event for that.
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
To go a little crazy, maybe the Media Center.
Updates for MacMini and Laptops at this time will be a simple Tuesday update on Apple's site. I see no reason to have an Special Event for that.
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
Glideslope
Apr 25, 07:14 PM
Liquid-metal!!!
Unibody Liquid Metal, or a Aluminum/Liquid Metal Hybrid.
It's NOT going to be Carbon Fiber.
It's going to be "Magical". :apple:
Unibody Liquid Metal, or a Aluminum/Liquid Metal Hybrid.
It's NOT going to be Carbon Fiber.
It's going to be "Magical". :apple:
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 22, 02:02 PM
Woot Woot! Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
Buy a gaming laptop instead.
SB was meant for machines like the Air.
Buy a gaming laptop instead.
SB was meant for machines like the Air.
Anonymous Freak
May 3, 04:46 PM
You could just use teleport http://www.abyssoft.com/software/teleport/
Teleport isn't the same. Teleport is a way to CONTROL a second computer, I'm referring to a way to specifically use extra direct-connect monitors.
Not to mention... Why would you want to use the new iMac as a display on an older computer? By the time this iMac is obsolete and ready for re-use as a display, you'll have a newer/faster/better computer to connect it to.
Teleport isn't the same. Teleport is a way to CONTROL a second computer, I'm referring to a way to specifically use extra direct-connect monitors.
Not to mention... Why would you want to use the new iMac as a display on an older computer? By the time this iMac is obsolete and ready for re-use as a display, you'll have a newer/faster/better computer to connect it to.
Rocketman
Sep 9, 08:58 PM
Any word on the difference between the C2D 2.16 and the 2.33? Is it worth the upgrade price?
The benefit should be nearly linear, so not much. I suggest putting the price difference in a fund toward your next computer in 2 years, when something even more cool and hard top pass up will be available.
Rocketman
The benefit should be nearly linear, so not much. I suggest putting the price difference in a fund toward your next computer in 2 years, when something even more cool and hard top pass up will be available.
Rocketman
spicyapple
Sep 22, 04:39 AM
You do realize DVD itself is heavily DRMed, although its CSS is easily cracked. Its Macrovision protection is flawed, and regional coding can be circumvented.
If iTS movie DRM can be cracked, would it make it a better value for you? Why are we even comparing it to DVDs? If you wish to have the convenience of portable digital downloads, then it is a great service.
If iTS movie DRM can be cracked, would it make it a better value for you? Why are we even comparing it to DVDs? If you wish to have the convenience of portable digital downloads, then it is a great service.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 4, 08:54 AM
Ive used Macs for 20 years with no antivirus software; never had a virus
Only heard rumours of any out in the wild-like sightings of bigfoot
Never seen a huge Microsoft type hoopla over some new virus-of-the month crisis
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
No, my friend, you are wrong. it's not Bigfoot.
It's the Chupacabra! Well..., at least the McAfee version. :D
Only heard rumours of any out in the wild-like sightings of bigfoot
Never seen a huge Microsoft type hoopla over some new virus-of-the month crisis
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
No, my friend, you are wrong. it's not Bigfoot.
It's the Chupacabra! Well..., at least the McAfee version. :D
cwt1nospam
Jan 1, 05:21 PM
Sad, but true :(
(And I don't feel the need to argue or debate or say more in this thread to justify this obvious fact.)
Too bad you don't feel the need to learn the facts either. Just where are these viruses going to come from? How will they get executed/installed? Answer: They will not come because they can't execute. That's what a walled garden is: protection from the wild.
(And I don't feel the need to argue or debate or say more in this thread to justify this obvious fact.)
Too bad you don't feel the need to learn the facts either. Just where are these viruses going to come from? How will they get executed/installed? Answer: They will not come because they can't execute. That's what a walled garden is: protection from the wild.
Sean7512
Sep 5, 04:42 PM
I'm not picky...All I want is a new iMac of some sort, whether it be 23" or 50", I just want a iMac, PLEASE!!! I'm crossing my fingers...
Although, a Movie Store could be SWEET!
Although, a Movie Store could be SWEET!
Sweener88
Sep 13, 08:46 AM
Remember that these are not "NEW" iPods, Steve said they were just enhancing them so all the people that are upset with the new features and say "they could have updated it anytime" need to realize that its just a small EHANCEMENT nothing new like the nano's. Here's a link to a pic i took that proofs that the letters appear as of 1.2. iv been on so many forms since yesterdays new that I'm not sure if it was this one but someone said that this wasn't part of 1.2 update.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63548361@N00/241971800/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63548361@N00/241971800/