CalBoy
Apr 25, 01:54 AM
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
MattyMac
Sep 5, 08:46 PM
Darn it, 6 more days to go.
ahhh...at least you have something to look forward too.
It's all about the little things in life;)
ahhh...at least you have something to look forward too.
It's all about the little things in life;)
doctor-don
Mar 29, 01:28 PM
Only way MS would get these numbers is if Windows Phone takes over the business cellular market.
The only way that would happen would be for the phone to be GIVEN away at a price so LOW that nobody would refuse it. And it would have to include a data plan that costs practically nothing. And it would have to be contract free.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria™ for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
The only way that would happen would be for the phone to be GIVEN away at a price so LOW that nobody would refuse it. And it would have to include a data plan that costs practically nothing. And it would have to be contract free.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria™ for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
Westside guy
Sep 5, 03:16 PM
This could be either really big or really bad.
Well, based on past experience here - no matter what is announced, there will be people on this forum complaining that it isn't enough. :p We'll have to wait and see how it (whatever "it" is) plays in Peoria over time.
Personally I'm hoping for the AV streaming device; and if it ties in with my Tivo that'll be a big plus. :D
Well, based on past experience here - no matter what is announced, there will be people on this forum complaining that it isn't enough. :p We'll have to wait and see how it (whatever "it" is) plays in Peoria over time.
Personally I'm hoping for the AV streaming device; and if it ties in with my Tivo that'll be a big plus. :D
steve_hill4
Oct 27, 10:11 AM
[QUOTE=Dunepilot]I didn't even know there was an Expo on!QUOTE]
Oh it's on. It's nowhere near as big as MacWorld San Francisco or MacWorld Paris, but Mac Expo London is pretty good for those in the UK that don't want to travel too far. �12 per person on the door, but the first 5000 to order in advance got tickets for free, (including me, off there tomorrow).
From the Green point of view, I would want Apple to be as green as the fruit they name themselves after. I am all for recycling, minimising energy consumption and many other environmental issues. I don't however want to have to buy some godawful PC just on the basis of their green record. For example, why do all the Apple computers have to ship with the box, wrapped in a plastic bag, surrounded in polystyrene, inside another box? Surely Apple can reduce the amount and layers of packaging and make another smaller step to a decent green record.
Hope they're back tomorrow and I can have a small chat with them at some point.
Oh it's on. It's nowhere near as big as MacWorld San Francisco or MacWorld Paris, but Mac Expo London is pretty good for those in the UK that don't want to travel too far. �12 per person on the door, but the first 5000 to order in advance got tickets for free, (including me, off there tomorrow).
From the Green point of view, I would want Apple to be as green as the fruit they name themselves after. I am all for recycling, minimising energy consumption and many other environmental issues. I don't however want to have to buy some godawful PC just on the basis of their green record. For example, why do all the Apple computers have to ship with the box, wrapped in a plastic bag, surrounded in polystyrene, inside another box? Surely Apple can reduce the amount and layers of packaging and make another smaller step to a decent green record.
Hope they're back tomorrow and I can have a small chat with them at some point.
mrsir2009
Apr 25, 03:01 PM
I wonder if they'll go SSD and maintain the price-point by saying bye-bye to the superdrive? I hope so, i'd prefer SSD speed over a disc drive which i hardly use anymore.
Also, i'm thinking the black bezel might go. In my opinion, the black hinge doesn't look too good when the rest is metal.
Bigger trackpad, for Lion's gestures?
I hope they don't go sloped, like the air. But then again, when it comes to design, Apple always make it sexy, so i don't mind really.
Can't wait anyway, i was recently thinking of buying a MacBook Pro, glad i didn't jump in too soon :)
Sorry, but the cost of an 80GB SSD is about $500 NZD, while an optical drive costs $30 NZD. Don't think it'll quite cover the cost ;) Oh, and if you want something like a 500GB+ SSD your looking at $1000+
Also, i'm thinking the black bezel might go. In my opinion, the black hinge doesn't look too good when the rest is metal.
Bigger trackpad, for Lion's gestures?
I hope they don't go sloped, like the air. But then again, when it comes to design, Apple always make it sexy, so i don't mind really.
Can't wait anyway, i was recently thinking of buying a MacBook Pro, glad i didn't jump in too soon :)
Sorry, but the cost of an 80GB SSD is about $500 NZD, while an optical drive costs $30 NZD. Don't think it'll quite cover the cost ;) Oh, and if you want something like a 500GB+ SSD your looking at $1000+
peeInMyPantz
Sep 13, 11:41 PM
i think iphone will have aluminium surface to match the new ipods. maybe same colour combi?
Diatribe
Sep 19, 03:27 PM
I'm not touching it until they offer 5.1 sound. I'm sure its just a matter of time, though.
I thought they did?:confused:
I thought they did?:confused:
joejacjaac
Apr 25, 07:51 AM
Personally, I really would like to see all day battery life from the new MBA instead of cpu upgrade. That would make the air a must buy.
PBF
Apr 19, 02:36 PM
How sleazy of you, Apple.
Almost like stabbing in the back.
Not nice, Apple, not nice.
Almost like stabbing in the back.
Not nice, Apple, not nice.
OrangeSVTguy
Mar 23, 06:35 PM
Is this more about removing drunk drivers from the road-which it won't because of the tax revenue from beer sales, or is this about getting more money from people paying fines, from DUIs, speeding etc. Yes it's always about about money.
Seriously if you want to remove drunk drivers, prohibition(which I seriously doubt).
Seriously if you want to remove drunk drivers, prohibition(which I seriously doubt).
Tommyg117
Sep 12, 02:15 PM
Pretty sure new iPod is still classed as 5G.
I was wondering about that too. These are all great upgrades though. I'm very pleased with this keynote.
I was wondering about that too. These are all great upgrades though. I'm very pleased with this keynote.
seashellz
Feb 14, 01:55 PM
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2010:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2009:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2008:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2007:
News Item: McAfee claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine to propel its own flying saucer ahead of Nortons plans;
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
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2009:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2008:
* Apple: No longer flying under the radar
McAfee Labs Threat Predictions for 2007:
News Item: McAfee claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine to propel its own flying saucer ahead of Nortons plans;
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
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
bommai
Sep 19, 03:49 PM
Sometimes it helps to do a quick search. ;)
They do have surround sound support. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304277#faq26)
It clearly states Dolby Surround and Dolby Pro Logic Systems. This is from the VHS days. DVDs support Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. This is plain nuts. Not only are you getting slightly inferior picture, the sound is ancient. Dolby Surround is nowhere as good as Dolby Digital. Here is a simple explanation.
Dolby Surround uses two tracks of audio to encode 4 tracks. The two additional tracks are for the center channel and a single rear channel. The single rear channel is not full spectrum (20Hz - 20kHz), but rather something very narrow.
For comparison, if you have a good surround sound system (I am not talking about the $200 Home Theatre in a box system, but a system that cost at least $1000), play a DVD that has both Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital. Play with the Dolby Surround track first and then play with the Dolby Digital track next. Huge difference. I am disappointed. Surely, there is a way they could embed discrete surround with AAC.
The specs for Dolby Digital is as follows: 5 tracks of discrete digital sound full spectrum 20Hz-20kHz. One channel for LFE (low frequency extension) - topping out at about 120Hz. That is why you have 5.1.
Dolby Digital is lossy compression though but still you have 5.1 channels. DTS is another lossy compression format but has a higher bit rate and sounds better than Dolby Digital. DTS typically have about 760kbps while Dolby Digital is about 448kbps.
HD-DVD and Bluray Disk support Dolby TrueHD that supports 8 channels of lossless sound upto 18Mbps. Cool. Well, we are way off from there.
They do have surround sound support. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304277#faq26)
It clearly states Dolby Surround and Dolby Pro Logic Systems. This is from the VHS days. DVDs support Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. This is plain nuts. Not only are you getting slightly inferior picture, the sound is ancient. Dolby Surround is nowhere as good as Dolby Digital. Here is a simple explanation.
Dolby Surround uses two tracks of audio to encode 4 tracks. The two additional tracks are for the center channel and a single rear channel. The single rear channel is not full spectrum (20Hz - 20kHz), but rather something very narrow.
For comparison, if you have a good surround sound system (I am not talking about the $200 Home Theatre in a box system, but a system that cost at least $1000), play a DVD that has both Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital. Play with the Dolby Surround track first and then play with the Dolby Digital track next. Huge difference. I am disappointed. Surely, there is a way they could embed discrete surround with AAC.
The specs for Dolby Digital is as follows: 5 tracks of discrete digital sound full spectrum 20Hz-20kHz. One channel for LFE (low frequency extension) - topping out at about 120Hz. That is why you have 5.1.
Dolby Digital is lossy compression though but still you have 5.1 channels. DTS is another lossy compression format but has a higher bit rate and sounds better than Dolby Digital. DTS typically have about 760kbps while Dolby Digital is about 448kbps.
HD-DVD and Bluray Disk support Dolby TrueHD that supports 8 channels of lossless sound upto 18Mbps. Cool. Well, we are way off from there.
shawmanus
Sep 10, 08:53 AM
Couple of things
Kentsfield is not replacing conroe. Its only replacing conroe xe. Intel does not see mainstream quad core for atleast 2 years when s/w gets multithreaded. So Kentsfield should atleast cost $999 and would be seen in gaming platforms and workstations.
Tigerton is new xeon mp solution to replace netburst based tulsa. It is definately not pin compatible with kentsfield. Apple currently does not have any MP ( >= 4P solutions) in their portfolio. Maybe they would create one in their xserve portfolio. Tigerton would be extremely expensive as well.
iMac currently have laptop processors having around ~30w TDP. Kentsfield will have 110w tdp and I dont see Apple redesigning iMac to accomodate it. Maybe once intel has a native quad core on 45nm with around 60w TDP we will see a quad core in iMac.
Apple should release a "headless tower" with conroe/kentsfield. That should be significantly cheaper than Macpro.
Kentsfield is not replacing conroe. Its only replacing conroe xe. Intel does not see mainstream quad core for atleast 2 years when s/w gets multithreaded. So Kentsfield should atleast cost $999 and would be seen in gaming platforms and workstations.
Tigerton is new xeon mp solution to replace netburst based tulsa. It is definately not pin compatible with kentsfield. Apple currently does not have any MP ( >= 4P solutions) in their portfolio. Maybe they would create one in their xserve portfolio. Tigerton would be extremely expensive as well.
iMac currently have laptop processors having around ~30w TDP. Kentsfield will have 110w tdp and I dont see Apple redesigning iMac to accomodate it. Maybe once intel has a native quad core on 45nm with around 60w TDP we will see a quad core in iMac.
Apple should release a "headless tower" with conroe/kentsfield. That should be significantly cheaper than Macpro.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 09:20 AM
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
when you are at home turn on your WIFI...
why is this concept so hard to grasp?
you are a different kind of user. 3 running copies at once?? you rely way too much on physical stuff....so obviously this won't be for you.
when you are at home turn on your WIFI...
why is this concept so hard to grasp?
you are a different kind of user. 3 running copies at once?? you rely way too much on physical stuff....so obviously this won't be for you.
FFTT
Sep 10, 08:26 PM
I understand the need for a mid level consumer tower, but right now
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
antster94
Apr 4, 11:56 AM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
Sobering
Sep 4, 03:35 PM
Unless it's just the 23" iMac I have been hearing about, then it's ok. But if it's a totally new iMac that'll fire me off pretty good.
rockthecasbah
Sep 19, 02:57 PM
Personally, I'm not interested in buying movies for myself; I don't really like watching on the computer or iPod screen so i may as well buy the disk version of the movie and be happier on a larger screen :) . To those that are using it and enjoy, that's great. I just feel like there are many more people like me that will prefer to have physical movie versus a "digital" counterpart. Songs just seem more petty and i feel more comfortable downloading them, but movies... meh.
shecky
Sep 14, 09:51 AM
You guys are just delusional at this point.
MBP C2D IS going to happen. sometime between now and (for example) a year from now. saying "there is no way they will get announced on the 24th becuase its a photo event" is quite simply ignorant. it most certainly MAY happn, and the other machines that were released at the last photo event as mentioned above proove there is even a precident for it happening. i personally think its seems reasonably likely it will happen on the 24th, tho i would not bet on it.
edit: removal of an uneccesary comment
MBP C2D IS going to happen. sometime between now and (for example) a year from now. saying "there is no way they will get announced on the 24th becuase its a photo event" is quite simply ignorant. it most certainly MAY happn, and the other machines that were released at the last photo event as mentioned above proove there is even a precident for it happening. i personally think its seems reasonably likely it will happen on the 24th, tho i would not bet on it.
edit: removal of an uneccesary comment
mape2k
Apr 30, 06:28 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Pointless right now, but what about in 6 month? The price of the iMac will just be the same then but it is very likely some TB displays and external storage device have been released. So why not by now and wait for the TB peripherals?
Plugging in one cable to connect and external monitor while daisy chaining multiple external storage sources is far from pointless to me...
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Pointless right now, but what about in 6 month? The price of the iMac will just be the same then but it is very likely some TB displays and external storage device have been released. So why not by now and wait for the TB peripherals?
Plugging in one cable to connect and external monitor while daisy chaining multiple external storage sources is far from pointless to me...
peharri
Sep 26, 09:29 PM
Cingular cellular service is only decent in a few areas and their customer service is the worst I've ever come across. If Apple wants to maintain/boost their image, Cingular will not help them in that area, not at all. Judging by this forum those things appear to be almost unanimous. I'd say it would be a bad move on Apples part to make an exclusive deal with Cingular for any bit of time. Anything longer than 6 months and Apple doesn't stand a chance succeeding. With competition mounting in the ipod arena, not updating their intel product fast enough and this. I'm afraid Apple will be hurting. Not something I wanna see.
Here, let me help you with that.
10 PRINT "Please enter the name of a US cellular provider"
20 INPUT C$
30 PRINT C$ + " cellular service is only decent in a few areas and their customer service is the worst I've ever come across. If Apple wants to maintain/boost their image, " + C$+ " will not help them in that area, not at all. Judging by this forum those things appear to be almost unanimous. I'd say it would be a bad move on Apples part to make an exclusive deal with " + C$ + " for any bit of time. Anything longer than 6 months and Apple doesn't stand a chance succeeding. With competition mounting in the ipod arena, not updating their intel product fast enough and this. I'm afraid Apple will be hurting. Not something I wanna see."
Seriously, I'd say one or two are ok with the service (I was a fan of Sprint PCS round about 1999-2001), but as far as coverage goes, they're all pretty much as bad as each other. Sure, NetCell is WAAAY better than ComuNet where you live, but where Fred lives, he can only get one bar on ComuNet and nothing at all with NetCell, but OmniCell gets a strong signal, but OmniCell doesn't even have a license where I am, I have to go with RuralFone.
We're almost done with the consolidations so I don't think coverage in general is going to improve. On the other hand, both GSM operators have announced plans to roll out UMA (GSM over 802.11g/Bluetooth), which means if they can't fix their effing networks, we'll be able to do it for them, soon. T-Mobile's should be announced any day now. I suspect once the GSM operators have it, the CDMA operators will follow.
As for customer service, the best solution is to sign for the shortest contract you can. That way, a bad experience can be followed by a quick walk to the local phone dealer (or even better, the Internet.) Don't ever, ever, accept a two year contract.
Oh and one more thing. There is no phone.
Here, let me help you with that.
10 PRINT "Please enter the name of a US cellular provider"
20 INPUT C$
30 PRINT C$ + " cellular service is only decent in a few areas and their customer service is the worst I've ever come across. If Apple wants to maintain/boost their image, " + C$+ " will not help them in that area, not at all. Judging by this forum those things appear to be almost unanimous. I'd say it would be a bad move on Apples part to make an exclusive deal with " + C$ + " for any bit of time. Anything longer than 6 months and Apple doesn't stand a chance succeeding. With competition mounting in the ipod arena, not updating their intel product fast enough and this. I'm afraid Apple will be hurting. Not something I wanna see."
Seriously, I'd say one or two are ok with the service (I was a fan of Sprint PCS round about 1999-2001), but as far as coverage goes, they're all pretty much as bad as each other. Sure, NetCell is WAAAY better than ComuNet where you live, but where Fred lives, he can only get one bar on ComuNet and nothing at all with NetCell, but OmniCell gets a strong signal, but OmniCell doesn't even have a license where I am, I have to go with RuralFone.
We're almost done with the consolidations so I don't think coverage in general is going to improve. On the other hand, both GSM operators have announced plans to roll out UMA (GSM over 802.11g/Bluetooth), which means if they can't fix their effing networks, we'll be able to do it for them, soon. T-Mobile's should be announced any day now. I suspect once the GSM operators have it, the CDMA operators will follow.
As for customer service, the best solution is to sign for the shortest contract you can. That way, a bad experience can be followed by a quick walk to the local phone dealer (or even better, the Internet.) Don't ever, ever, accept a two year contract.
Oh and one more thing. There is no phone.