Machead III
Aug 29, 04:31 AM
I imagine Santa Rosa would be long gone by summer '08.
cozmot
Mar 17, 07:31 AM
It this utter ignorance and false sense of security in the Mac user base that I would use to my advantage if I were a cyber-criminal. While I completely appreciate the lack of malware OSX has enjoyed thus far, I've seen more than enough evidence over the past few years to tell me that it's far from safe. The latest Safari/Webkit hacking contest result alone should be enough to cause any reasonable person to take notice. I think a few people will be changing their tunes the day the crap finally hits the fan.
For some reason, a certain famous quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy about the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation comes to mind regarding certain people who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.... ;)
So you're not a cyber-criminal, but there are many out there, yet they haven't used this "sense of security in the Mac user base" to their advantage, have they? The latest hacking contest (I assume you're referring to Pwn2Own 2011) resulted in Safari and IE 8 being hacked. A browser is not an OS. Note that Goggle Chrome came out with flying colors, yet one of its platforms - Windows - has been hacked many times.
Simply put, there are underlying vulnerabilities to Windows that do not exist with OS X. That said, the real dangers to your computer are how you use it. Don't have a password on your wireless router? Use easy-to-guess passwords on your online accounts? Never change your passwords? Use the same password on all your accounts? Visit porn sites a lot and download that stuff? Download movies illegally? Click on links in emails from people you don't know? Or, from those you do, don't look at the source to see if it's a valid link? Respond to emails telling you that your [fill in the blank] account has been temporarily disabled, and that you need to "verify" your information to reactivate it? If so to any of the above, you're asking for trouble, even if you do have AV software "protecting" you.
There are many security experts who do not use AV software. Steve Gibson http://www.grc.com is one of them. Why? They practice safe computing and use common sense. No amount of AV or Internet security software is going to protect people who practice unsafe computing.
We've been hearing about the crap hitting the fan for years, and will for years to come. Yawn.
For some reason, a certain famous quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy about the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation comes to mind regarding certain people who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.... ;)
So you're not a cyber-criminal, but there are many out there, yet they haven't used this "sense of security in the Mac user base" to their advantage, have they? The latest hacking contest (I assume you're referring to Pwn2Own 2011) resulted in Safari and IE 8 being hacked. A browser is not an OS. Note that Goggle Chrome came out with flying colors, yet one of its platforms - Windows - has been hacked many times.
Simply put, there are underlying vulnerabilities to Windows that do not exist with OS X. That said, the real dangers to your computer are how you use it. Don't have a password on your wireless router? Use easy-to-guess passwords on your online accounts? Never change your passwords? Use the same password on all your accounts? Visit porn sites a lot and download that stuff? Download movies illegally? Click on links in emails from people you don't know? Or, from those you do, don't look at the source to see if it's a valid link? Respond to emails telling you that your [fill in the blank] account has been temporarily disabled, and that you need to "verify" your information to reactivate it? If so to any of the above, you're asking for trouble, even if you do have AV software "protecting" you.
There are many security experts who do not use AV software. Steve Gibson http://www.grc.com is one of them. Why? They practice safe computing and use common sense. No amount of AV or Internet security software is going to protect people who practice unsafe computing.
We've been hearing about the crap hitting the fan for years, and will for years to come. Yawn.
Chris Bangle
Sep 1, 03:29 AM
I reckon Steves easily got rights to sell uk movies on itunes, hoping touchscreen thing, uk shows and moives and a iphone.
Has anyone seen how awesome this looks...
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/samsung-ypk5-mp3-mini-boombox-first-unboxing-review-and-video-198099.php
Has anyone seen how awesome this looks...
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/samsung-ypk5-mp3-mini-boombox-first-unboxing-review-and-video-198099.php
Hal Jordan
Apr 20, 08:21 PM
From Nilay's post:
The first four seem flimsy in light this..
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/392/algoq.jpg
Wow. Good find. How is Apple even gonna dispute that.
Bottom Line, with this lawsuit, Apple has clearly declared they see Samsung as a very real threat. Samsung is MASSIVE. They are a true OEM. Look how they were able to pull off a revised Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a span of 2 months. That's true OEM muscle being flexed. Apple Knows this, hence their request to have the Galaxy devices removed from market.
What an absolute joke. I'm still a little shocked Apple is even suing.
The first four seem flimsy in light this..
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/392/algoq.jpg
Wow. Good find. How is Apple even gonna dispute that.
Bottom Line, with this lawsuit, Apple has clearly declared they see Samsung as a very real threat. Samsung is MASSIVE. They are a true OEM. Look how they were able to pull off a revised Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a span of 2 months. That's true OEM muscle being flexed. Apple Knows this, hence their request to have the Galaxy devices removed from market.
What an absolute joke. I'm still a little shocked Apple is even suing.
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:01 AM
I'm a pretty serious Apple fanatic and I'm willing to scrap my family's iPhones because of this. I know the government can track me anyway by watching my movement across cell towers, but this is a huge affront to privacy.
If you tie this story to the recent news from Michigan that cops there are able to suck the data off of your phone at a traffic stop, then this is really frightening.
If this is your biggest worry on people being able to track you...hmph.
Tinfoil hats are going to be all the rage here soon.
If you tie this story to the recent news from Michigan that cops there are able to suck the data off of your phone at a traffic stop, then this is really frightening.
If this is your biggest worry on people being able to track you...hmph.
Tinfoil hats are going to be all the rage here soon.
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 10:56 AM
I just assumed that being 64-bit or 32-bit was a system wide principle, either or.
A 64-bit operating system is one that provides 64-bit virtual addresses to its processes. It requires a CPU that supports 64-bit virtual addressing. The C2D is such a CPU, and runs 64-bit code and O/S.
These humongous 64-bit virtual addresses need to be translated to a physical address to reach the actual memory. The 64-bit CPU has a list of pages of physical memory, and tables to map a program's virtual address to a physical page. Once that mapping is done, the 64-bit virtual address can be used as a "synonym" for the actual physical address. The mapping is per process - two processes can use the same virtual address without interference - the same virtual address refers to different physical pages depending on the process which is using it.
In the case of the Napa(32) chipset, the chipset only has 32 address lines, and cannot physically handle more than 4 GiB of RAM. Some of those addresses are reserved for I/O purposes (such as the 256 MiB that is mapped to the VRAM of the video card).
If you plug 4 GiB of RAM into a Napa(32) system, you'll "lose" the memory that is over-mapped by I/O space. For example, right now I'm typing from a dual-Xeon (32-bit Netburst) with 4 GiB of RAM installed. Windows reports that I have 3520 MiB of memory. I've "lost" a half GiB due to these I/O space mappings. (My 4 GiB Yonah laptop reports 3.1 GiB available - PCIe systems seem to reserve a lot more memory for I/O than PCI-X systems.)
Apple is apparently saying that 3 GiB is the limit, so that they don't have to explain PCIe I/O bus mapping to people calling to complain that OSX isn't using all 4 GiB.
____________
This virtual-to-physical mapping has some other implications:
World Map With Countries And
world map with countries and
world map with countries
World Map- Ocean
FINE SINO-CENTRIC MAP SHOWING
world map with countries and
world map with countries and
world map with countries and
world map with countries and
World Map With Countries And
world map with countries and
Simple map of ocean hemisphere
world map with countries and
A 64-bit operating system is one that provides 64-bit virtual addresses to its processes. It requires a CPU that supports 64-bit virtual addressing. The C2D is such a CPU, and runs 64-bit code and O/S.
These humongous 64-bit virtual addresses need to be translated to a physical address to reach the actual memory. The 64-bit CPU has a list of pages of physical memory, and tables to map a program's virtual address to a physical page. Once that mapping is done, the 64-bit virtual address can be used as a "synonym" for the actual physical address. The mapping is per process - two processes can use the same virtual address without interference - the same virtual address refers to different physical pages depending on the process which is using it.
In the case of the Napa(32) chipset, the chipset only has 32 address lines, and cannot physically handle more than 4 GiB of RAM. Some of those addresses are reserved for I/O purposes (such as the 256 MiB that is mapped to the VRAM of the video card).
If you plug 4 GiB of RAM into a Napa(32) system, you'll "lose" the memory that is over-mapped by I/O space. For example, right now I'm typing from a dual-Xeon (32-bit Netburst) with 4 GiB of RAM installed. Windows reports that I have 3520 MiB of memory. I've "lost" a half GiB due to these I/O space mappings. (My 4 GiB Yonah laptop reports 3.1 GiB available - PCIe systems seem to reserve a lot more memory for I/O than PCI-X systems.)
Apple is apparently saying that 3 GiB is the limit, so that they don't have to explain PCIe I/O bus mapping to people calling to complain that OSX isn't using all 4 GiB.
____________
This virtual-to-physical mapping has some other implications:
ChazUK
Apr 19, 07:40 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
The Nexus S looks different to the Galaxy S in software and physical looks but is included in the suit. As that is a Google experience device I do wonder why Apple don't target Google directly.
Google probably have a kickass patent portfolio so they'll just countersue.
I doubt it considering the Nortel bid. Apple could hit Google hard now and be in a decent position if they tried now.
The Nexus S looks different to the Galaxy S in software and physical looks but is included in the suit. As that is a Google experience device I do wonder why Apple don't target Google directly.
Google probably have a kickass patent portfolio so they'll just countersue.
I doubt it considering the Nortel bid. Apple could hit Google hard now and be in a decent position if they tried now.
G5power
Jul 14, 09:18 AM
This is good to see. High performance chips from Intel and a great design from Apple, this will be fun to see what is announced at WWDC.
milo
Sep 5, 04:35 PM
ok, just made a quick mockup of what i would like to see announced next week :cool:
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via an front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
You nailed it, that would be perfect. That's EXACTLY what they should do.
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via an front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
You nailed it, that would be perfect. That's EXACTLY what they should do.
akm3
Apr 25, 06:39 PM
Getting rid of the optical drive would be stupid. No way to burn CDs (yes, I buy CDs because I like supporting artists and I like higher quality music) and no way to watch DVDs (no DVD player or TV here in my dorm room).
I think you're being sarcastic but what the hell...
What does burning CD's have to do with buying CD's? Also you can support artists by buying from iTunes or Amazon mp3. Finally, you can watch MOVIES through iTunes or Amazon or Netflix, or if you really want to play plastic discs, an inexpensive external DVD burner would let you listen to CD's, rip CD's, burn CD's, watch DVD's, rip DVD's and burn DVD's. If you do all these things in your dorm room, you'll alway have your external. Things that you don't need >50% of the time shouldn't be built into the computer, in MY opinion. It irks me to carry my heavy ass Dell work computer and see serial ports and parallel ports and useless stuff on the back, making it bulky and heavy.
I think you're being sarcastic but what the hell...
What does burning CD's have to do with buying CD's? Also you can support artists by buying from iTunes or Amazon mp3. Finally, you can watch MOVIES through iTunes or Amazon or Netflix, or if you really want to play plastic discs, an inexpensive external DVD burner would let you listen to CD's, rip CD's, burn CD's, watch DVD's, rip DVD's and burn DVD's. If you do all these things in your dorm room, you'll alway have your external. Things that you don't need >50% of the time shouldn't be built into the computer, in MY opinion. It irks me to carry my heavy ass Dell work computer and see serial ports and parallel ports and useless stuff on the back, making it bulky and heavy.
chatin
Sep 5, 09:06 PM
They may have partnered with a network like Showtime for a movie library.
1) No HD. Way too much bandwidth here! As someone who edits HD, Mac Pro is underpowered for 1080i. (Not really!)
2) No first run movies like Walmart gets on the day of release. Although I wish, since I was capsized at Amazon, with a wrong version, scratched Poseidon.
But if one of the above proved untrue I would be very happy and start buying like crazy!! :p
1) No HD. Way too much bandwidth here! As someone who edits HD, Mac Pro is underpowered for 1080i. (Not really!)
2) No first run movies like Walmart gets on the day of release. Although I wish, since I was capsized at Amazon, with a wrong version, scratched Poseidon.
But if one of the above proved untrue I would be very happy and start buying like crazy!! :p
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.
PghLondon
Apr 30, 06:59 PM
Very intelligent response.
Give it a shot pal.
I love internet tough guys.
Give it a shot pal.
I love internet tough guys.
Peace
Sep 5, 05:58 PM
Wow, you really don't get it.
Watching on the tv is exactly what this is about. The whole point is that you don't need to have a *computer* or even a *hard drive* next to the TV since you can just stream the video from a computer ANYWHERE in your house.
Seriously, did you even look at the picture you responded to?
Yes I did milo.And it's a fine rendition :)
Only thing is one still has to connect some kind of A/V cables to the TV..
Think about that concept.
Watching on the tv is exactly what this is about. The whole point is that you don't need to have a *computer* or even a *hard drive* next to the TV since you can just stream the video from a computer ANYWHERE in your house.
Seriously, did you even look at the picture you responded to?
Yes I did milo.And it's a fine rendition :)
Only thing is one still has to connect some kind of A/V cables to the TV..
Think about that concept.
holycat
Sep 12, 03:10 PM
a liTTLe bit disappointed...:mad: :mad:
i wiLL still buy this 80Gb iPod with the iMac 24`:p :p
my 1st iPod and 1st Mac machine
i wiLL still buy this 80Gb iPod with the iMac 24`:p :p
my 1st iPod and 1st Mac machine
MattyMac
Oct 12, 05:07 PM
100% confirmed.
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
Nice!
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
Nice!
jaydub
Aug 28, 10:31 PM
wake up then, because it won't happen for awhile.
The current enclosure is very nice, so why change it?
Because people are so scared of immediate obsolescence that they'd rather hope for a new enclosure than enjoy what is currently out. It gets really old.
The current enclosure is very nice, so why change it?
Because people are so scared of immediate obsolescence that they'd rather hope for a new enclosure than enjoy what is currently out. It gets really old.
aprilfools
Aug 31, 02:38 PM
Apple is buying MicroSoft
Voltes V
Sep 12, 02:32 AM
i didn't know they glueintel chips to the motherboard. super glue? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Manic Mouse
Sep 13, 06:48 AM
A stop-gap update to keep iPod sales flowing, while they work on the real update, if I ever saw one: Minor and irrelvant upgrades, price lowered.
The "true" video-iPod will be here within 6 months.
The "true" video-iPod will be here within 6 months.
Maddix
Apr 22, 06:45 PM
I would also prefer AMD, but I don't think there will be Llanos low-powered enough for the MBA.
Look at the Zacate E-350. It's 18W, and CPU-wise it's at a dual core Atom level.
OK, it's bulk 40nm, and Llano is 32nm SOI, but the quad mobile Llano I've seen is supposed to be 45W. MBAs are at 10W and 17W.
Llano is still a Stars+ core. Maybe next year with Bulldozer Fusion.
AMD would be producing better CPU's via increased profits if Apple chose them over Intel from the start.
Look at the Zacate E-350. It's 18W, and CPU-wise it's at a dual core Atom level.
OK, it's bulk 40nm, and Llano is 32nm SOI, but the quad mobile Llano I've seen is supposed to be 45W. MBAs are at 10W and 17W.
Llano is still a Stars+ core. Maybe next year with Bulldozer Fusion.
AMD would be producing better CPU's via increased profits if Apple chose them over Intel from the start.
cult hero
Apr 25, 04:42 PM
I bought a first gen unibody MacBook Pro and really liked it. However, in 2010 I sold it to replace it with the 13" MBP. For what I do that really is the perfect size. I've been toying with the idea of going to an MBA, but... no. The RAM is the biggest issue.
With that said, the resolution on the 13" MBA makes me jealous and I would have considered trading up if the latest generation had a resolution bump on the 13" models.
I'm quite curious about this upcoming generation of MacBook Pros though. Particularly if/what Apple will do to differentiate the 13" model as a "Pro" laptop. It would be really, really nice to see the optical drive go away and with that extra space increase the battery and/or bring back dedicated video to the 13" models.
Don't get me wrong, I love my little MBP. For work related purposes it does everything I need. However, it'd be nice to be able to play a few of the Steam games I have on it rather than my PC. Left 4 Dead 2 in particular, just because it'd be fun to take the machine over to a friend's place.
With that said, the resolution on the 13" MBA makes me jealous and I would have considered trading up if the latest generation had a resolution bump on the 13" models.
I'm quite curious about this upcoming generation of MacBook Pros though. Particularly if/what Apple will do to differentiate the 13" model as a "Pro" laptop. It would be really, really nice to see the optical drive go away and with that extra space increase the battery and/or bring back dedicated video to the 13" models.
Don't get me wrong, I love my little MBP. For work related purposes it does everything I need. However, it'd be nice to be able to play a few of the Steam games I have on it rather than my PC. Left 4 Dead 2 in particular, just because it'd be fun to take the machine over to a friend's place.
mrkramer
Apr 17, 02:13 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.
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.
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.
You do realize that one of the main reasons why the great depression was so bad was because Hoover was so worried about inflation that he caused deflation right? With deflation what you have is nobody is buying because if they wait then they can get something for cheaper and the economy suffers as a result. How many people do you think would buy iPhones if they new that next week there was going to be a price drop?
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
If you are going to make a claim like that you really should provide a source.
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.
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.
You do realize that one of the main reasons why the great depression was so bad was because Hoover was so worried about inflation that he caused deflation right? With deflation what you have is nobody is buying because if they wait then they can get something for cheaper and the economy suffers as a result. How many people do you think would buy iPhones if they new that next week there was going to be a price drop?
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
If you are going to make a claim like that you really should provide a source.
Al Coholic
Mar 30, 01:22 PM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
I have nothing to back this up but I'm thinking one never sees the word "Windows" without Microsoft accompanying it somewhere. It's more of a phrase which can indeed be trademarked.
Could be wrong of course.
Also of note is an attempt to own the word "Thunderbolt". I don't think one can copyright the weather.
I have nothing to back this up but I'm thinking one never sees the word "Windows" without Microsoft accompanying it somewhere. It's more of a phrase which can indeed be trademarked.
Could be wrong of course.
Also of note is an attempt to own the word "Thunderbolt". I don't think one can copyright the weather.
