rtdunham
Aug 27, 09:15 AM
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
good information, logical thought.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
good information, logical thought.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
Virtualball
Apr 19, 02:19 PM
Well if I'm wrong about the information, then I don't think anyone will argue about the fact that the Palm OS has been around since 1996, and the Apple iPhone uses a similar interface..
All I'm saying is that If there were devices using a similar interface before the iPhone came out I don't see how its fair to sue anyone for it..
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9153/palmtranicononpalmos.jpg
Sigh, you're entirely missing the point of this case. No one's arguing that there's been a grid of icons before, it's just that Samsung went the extra step. See, Android itself doesn't have a near-identical desktop, but TouchWiz does. TouchWiz is what you see here, the icons have been made into squares (like the iPhone), there's now a Dock with frequently used apps with a grey background to distinguish it (like the iPhone), it has a black background (meh) but it uses white dots to note the page it's on (like the iPhone). They went the extra mile to provide an iPhone-like experience for their Android devices.
All I'm saying is that If there were devices using a similar interface before the iPhone came out I don't see how its fair to sue anyone for it..
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9153/palmtranicononpalmos.jpg
Sigh, you're entirely missing the point of this case. No one's arguing that there's been a grid of icons before, it's just that Samsung went the extra step. See, Android itself doesn't have a near-identical desktop, but TouchWiz does. TouchWiz is what you see here, the icons have been made into squares (like the iPhone), there's now a Dock with frequently used apps with a grey background to distinguish it (like the iPhone), it has a black background (meh) but it uses white dots to note the page it's on (like the iPhone). They went the extra mile to provide an iPhone-like experience for their Android devices.
eawmp1
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
Now our long national nightmare is over! It's morning again in America. ;)
All is good with the world.
Left and right can unite behind the newly-legitimized president and join together to accomplish the work of the people.
:rolleyes:
All is good with the world.
Left and right can unite behind the newly-legitimized president and join together to accomplish the work of the people.
:rolleyes:
SeaFox
Aug 5, 06:04 PM
I can't believe it's only two days away, how time flies.
I'll be expecting the new Mac Pro to show up (order now, shipping in 6-8 weeks) and new displays (to match the Mac Pro's new enclosure, and becuase they haven't been updated in waaaay too long).
I don't think anything iPod-related will happen, but I'd really like them to update the Shuffle if they're going to.
I'll be expecting the new Mac Pro to show up (order now, shipping in 6-8 weeks) and new displays (to match the Mac Pro's new enclosure, and becuase they haven't been updated in waaaay too long).
I don't think anything iPod-related will happen, but I'd really like them to update the Shuffle if they're going to.
maclaptop
Apr 11, 05:42 PM
Do you really think they care? Even if they make a phone that doesn't make calls people will think it's the greatest innovation in the history of mankind.
This is so true it's sickening.
The number one function I'd like to see in the upcoming model is a phone that works as well as every other smartphone I own. Then I'd be able to rely on it, and promote it to my primary phone. Id like nothing better.
This is so true it's sickening.
The number one function I'd like to see in the upcoming model is a phone that works as well as every other smartphone I own. Then I'd be able to rely on it, and promote it to my primary phone. Id like nothing better.
NY Guitarist
Apr 6, 11:54 AM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes. I need to see the keyboard. And in a dark room it's critical.
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes. I need to see the keyboard. And in a dark room it's critical.
merk850
Jul 28, 07:41 PM
Well we all know how Apple works with when things are due.
Look at the G5 laptop.
Tweak or no tweak, the return will cost money and getting a refurbished is not getting a new one.
CounterPoint: If he is just going to take it back to buy a refurbished one, why take it back.
He allready has it! Thats a roundabout way to work, isnt it?
If you take it back, you wait for the new one, why spend the money for restocking and not get the new one?
The question remains, what are you going to get with a new iMac that you dont have now?
If you were going to get a MacPro, then I would say, my god, return that iMac and get a new MacPro, if not then keep what you got and use it for the next 2 months and enjoy it,, cheers!
Multimedia, Snowy and Grokgod,
Thanks for the continued thoughts. A store manager said she would be flexible with the 14 day return date, as lnog as I understand that I would pay the restock fee of 10%. What that means to me is I will hold on to this machine until the WWDC and if new model is announced I will return and repurchase, eating the restock fee.( Kind of a pay for usage plan I look at it as.) If no new enhancements are announced with the iMac i guess I will keep mine.
However, there is the thought as one of you have brought up to just reetuen and wait until Sept. when it may be more likely to arrive. A slippery slop0e I know but I am leaning mroe toward a return and repurchase, as a sort of insruance policy of sorts.
I know I can't have my cake and eat it...., but I was looking for insight into how likely an improvement in the iMac is this August.
Thanks again!
Merk850
Look at the G5 laptop.
Tweak or no tweak, the return will cost money and getting a refurbished is not getting a new one.
CounterPoint: If he is just going to take it back to buy a refurbished one, why take it back.
He allready has it! Thats a roundabout way to work, isnt it?
If you take it back, you wait for the new one, why spend the money for restocking and not get the new one?
The question remains, what are you going to get with a new iMac that you dont have now?
If you were going to get a MacPro, then I would say, my god, return that iMac and get a new MacPro, if not then keep what you got and use it for the next 2 months and enjoy it,, cheers!
Multimedia, Snowy and Grokgod,
Thanks for the continued thoughts. A store manager said she would be flexible with the 14 day return date, as lnog as I understand that I would pay the restock fee of 10%. What that means to me is I will hold on to this machine until the WWDC and if new model is announced I will return and repurchase, eating the restock fee.( Kind of a pay for usage plan I look at it as.) If no new enhancements are announced with the iMac i guess I will keep mine.
However, there is the thought as one of you have brought up to just reetuen and wait until Sept. when it may be more likely to arrive. A slippery slop0e I know but I am leaning mroe toward a return and repurchase, as a sort of insruance policy of sorts.
I know I can't have my cake and eat it...., but I was looking for insight into how likely an improvement in the iMac is this August.
Thanks again!
Merk850
jiggie2g
Jul 15, 01:08 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
daneoni
Aug 25, 03:52 PM
Another person who can never be satisfied.:rolleyes:
What is that even supposed to mean?
What is that even supposed to mean?
aohus
Apr 19, 01:52 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
gnasher729
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Shouldn't the flash HD have a significant role in overheating? I would think with the Flash HD with no moving parts it would be hard to over heat unless you sit there blocking the fan the whole time. :confused:
A hard drive uses less than 2 Watts while reading or writing. Flash uses the same or more when it is used; it only has an advantage when it is not used, where the hard disk drive has to spend energy to keep the drive spinning (less than 1 Watt).
A hard drive uses less than 2 Watts while reading or writing. Flash uses the same or more when it is used; it only has an advantage when it is not used, where the hard disk drive has to spend energy to keep the drive spinning (less than 1 Watt).
sachamun
Nov 28, 09:00 PM
While I usually don't go for boycotts this time I would make an exception, if this was to go through I'd boycott buying anything from Universal. It wouldn't matter if it was an artist I had listened to for years, I'd simply never buy anything they release from that point on.
I'd boycott Apple ipods too. I wouldn't touch a zune either but...that's for a whole lot of reasons.
I'd boycott Apple ipods too. I wouldn't touch a zune either but...that's for a whole lot of reasons.
iJohnHenry
Mar 23, 11:46 AM
Some called them 'the coalition of the billing' because so many members were paid off in some way.
For the Brits, that would be 'the coalition of the shilling'. :p
For the Brits, that would be 'the coalition of the shilling'. :p
wizard
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
Al Coholic
Mar 26, 06:03 PM
Maybe not the worst, but definitely the most useless.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
Kevin Monahan
Apr 6, 03:28 PM
Yes, many of the crashes I've experienced have to do with Matrox cards, but not all of them. My boss is on the Abode and Matrox beta teams, so I will let him deal with the feedback. I think the machines are primarily i7's with 8+GB RAM on Windows 7 64-bit...I don't know for sure though, I'm not well versed in Windows based machines.
Ah, Matrox cards, eh? Sounds like it might be the culprit. The machines you mention are definitely up to the task. Make sure you are updated to 5.0.3. That fixes a lot of problems.
Thanks for the feedback Michael.
Ah, Matrox cards, eh? Sounds like it might be the culprit. The machines you mention are definitely up to the task. Make sure you are updated to 5.0.3. That fixes a lot of problems.
Thanks for the feedback Michael.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 07:31 PM
Sticking your neck out there, I see. :)
I've always been a risk-taker. ;)
Sounds dangerously like, "the ends justify the means."
From a western perspective, there is legitimate concern for libyan civilians engaged in a popular uprising on the one hand, and both the threat to oil supplies and Gaddafi's enmity towards the international community on the other. Nobody wants to see a long, destructive civil war. Libya's own citizens rose in revolt, in sufficient numbers to wrest huge portions of the country from Gaddafi's control. Gaddafi has himself stated that he will hunt down and kill any person who stands against his regime.
Having grave reservations about intervention is all fine and well, but one has to be realistic - under what circumstances is non-intervention a good option here? Indeed, you could say "the ends justify the means" about that too - the oil keeps flowing, no foreign soldiers are killed and no money spent on military intervention. It also allows you the luxury of occupying the moral high ground, condemning human rights violations without taking sides or lifting a finger to aid anyone. It is obvious the UN has taken sides here, no doubt about it. Do you disagree with that decision?
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I don't think Obama was "dragged" into this at all, the US has gotten willingly involved - but to what extent do you think it was stage-managed?
I've always been a risk-taker. ;)
Sounds dangerously like, "the ends justify the means."
From a western perspective, there is legitimate concern for libyan civilians engaged in a popular uprising on the one hand, and both the threat to oil supplies and Gaddafi's enmity towards the international community on the other. Nobody wants to see a long, destructive civil war. Libya's own citizens rose in revolt, in sufficient numbers to wrest huge portions of the country from Gaddafi's control. Gaddafi has himself stated that he will hunt down and kill any person who stands against his regime.
Having grave reservations about intervention is all fine and well, but one has to be realistic - under what circumstances is non-intervention a good option here? Indeed, you could say "the ends justify the means" about that too - the oil keeps flowing, no foreign soldiers are killed and no money spent on military intervention. It also allows you the luxury of occupying the moral high ground, condemning human rights violations without taking sides or lifting a finger to aid anyone. It is obvious the UN has taken sides here, no doubt about it. Do you disagree with that decision?
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I don't think Obama was "dragged" into this at all, the US has gotten willingly involved - but to what extent do you think it was stage-managed?
SuperCachetes
Feb 28, 08:45 PM
No because heterosexuality is the default way the brain works
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
FF_productions
Jul 15, 12:54 AM
Here's hoping you're right. I think including 512 MB of RAM standard would be a bit of a slap in the face if Apple is releasing these supposedly "advanced" machines. What kind of advanced PowerMac has only 512 MB of RAM standard? ;) :cool:
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
Machead III
Sep 19, 11:52 AM
lolol did you see Steve? He invented MacTop. new laptoP.
rofl. it is g5
rofl. it is g5
dba7dba
Mar 22, 04:30 PM
i believe samsung manufactures a lot of their own hardware.. from the display panels to the chips. don't they provide apple with parts for the ipad too? i think this is how samsung is able to price match apple here
samsung designs and builds stuff in factories they OWN. Not all of their manufacturing is outsourced, unlike apple. Yes samsung provides ram, LCD (?), and A5 for apple's ipad. It was rumored that TSMC would also make A5 for apple so that apple is not so dependent on samsung but from what I saw in teardowns, samsung is still making some, if not all, of A5.
samsung designs and builds stuff in factories they OWN. Not all of their manufacturing is outsourced, unlike apple. Yes samsung provides ram, LCD (?), and A5 for apple's ipad. It was rumored that TSMC would also make A5 for apple so that apple is not so dependent on samsung but from what I saw in teardowns, samsung is still making some, if not all, of A5.
Denarius
Mar 22, 07:24 PM
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I had considered that theory, but when Cameron first broached a no-fly zone in parliament, Clinton's reaction seemed to be very put out when she initially put the dampers on the no-fly zone suggestion. If what you suggest is the case then, frankly, it's been done beautifully.
I think there's an argument for letting one of the partaking Arab nations run the show.
I had considered that theory, but when Cameron first broached a no-fly zone in parliament, Clinton's reaction seemed to be very put out when she initially put the dampers on the no-fly zone suggestion. If what you suggest is the case then, frankly, it's been done beautifully.
I think there's an argument for letting one of the partaking Arab nations run the show.
phytonix
Aug 27, 05:34 PM
canceled my MBP order
will wait until later
canceled order says shipment date of MBP is also Sept 1st
maybe they are really updating MBP
plz do...
will wait until later
canceled order says shipment date of MBP is also Sept 1st
maybe they are really updating MBP
plz do...
No comments:
Post a Comment