01civicman
Apr 8, 08:12 AM
I am also a work at BB. I can tell you how it works for me. If we are getting shipments, its being kept from the associates (at least in my store). My store is small and if they were some where in plain sight, we'd see them. Plus I'm pretty close to a lot of inventory guys. The Daily Quota thing doesn't make much sense, because in the end, its a month end budget that we have to meet. If we miss by 2K one day, but are over by 5K the next, it doesn't really matter. Sure the managers want to hit every day, but it doesn't really make that much sense.
As for the $100 pre-sale, my store stopped it at about 10 people, so its not like we did that to a ton of people, and about a week ago, 6 of them got their iPad, so our "list" is almost empty.
Also, having the iPad, definitely brings foot traffic in to potentially make money elsewhere, but in the end, if we sell 20,000 iPads (and nothing else), the store just lost money.
As for the $100 pre-sale, my store stopped it at about 10 people, so its not like we did that to a ton of people, and about a week ago, 6 of them got their iPad, so our "list" is almost empty.
Also, having the iPad, definitely brings foot traffic in to potentially make money elsewhere, but in the end, if we sell 20,000 iPads (and nothing else), the store just lost money.
thunng8
Apr 7, 05:31 PM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
wtmcgee
Mar 26, 03:46 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if Lion and iOS 5 are one and the same... if that's the case, and since Apple really needs to get iOS in the 21st century, I can believe this...
So much hilarity in this comment.
So much hilarity in this comment.
Leoff
Sep 19, 10:39 AM
While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
Again, this string of responses has been talking about the MacBook, not the MacBookPro. Anyone buying a MacBook to do heavy graphics or processor-intensive stuff doesn't know what they're doing.
As soon as the new models of any Mac come out, the old models drop in price because they become refurbs.
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
Again, this string of responses has been talking about the MacBook, not the MacBookPro. Anyone buying a MacBook to do heavy graphics or processor-intensive stuff doesn't know what they're doing.
As soon as the new models of any Mac come out, the old models drop in price because they become refurbs.
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
shamino
Jul 20, 11:28 AM
Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now.
Yes. This is their UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) chip.
The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads.
The T1 chip ships in several different configurations. 4-, 6- and 8-cores, at 1.0 or 1.2GHz. All sporting 4 threads per core.
The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K.
While this is their least expensive 8-core box, you should point out (for the benefit of everyone else reading this message) that the price is not just for the CPU. It's for a high-end server that includes 8G of RAM, 4 Gigabit Ethernet ports, remote management software, Java Enterprise, and Solaris 10. All in a 1U-high rack chassis.
A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W.
You are being very misleading here. According to Sun's spec sheet (http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t1000/specifications.jsp), it has a 300W power supply. Peak power consumption for the entire system is 220W, and typical consumption is 180W.
But those are for the entire system. Sun's page on the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) processor itself says that the CPU (in its 32-thread configuration) consumes 72W. The rest of that power consumption is from parts other than the CPU.
It's also worth noting Intel's Xeon spec sheet (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/specs.htm), which lists the fastest chips as consuming 130W for the CPU package alone! And that is with only four threads (two cores with 2-way hyperthreading.) I can guarantee you that a system based on one of these will have peak power consumption far greater than 220W.
Yes. This is their UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) chip.
The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads.
The T1 chip ships in several different configurations. 4-, 6- and 8-cores, at 1.0 or 1.2GHz. All sporting 4 threads per core.
The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K.
While this is their least expensive 8-core box, you should point out (for the benefit of everyone else reading this message) that the price is not just for the CPU. It's for a high-end server that includes 8G of RAM, 4 Gigabit Ethernet ports, remote management software, Java Enterprise, and Solaris 10. All in a 1U-high rack chassis.
A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W.
You are being very misleading here. According to Sun's spec sheet (http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t1000/specifications.jsp), it has a 300W power supply. Peak power consumption for the entire system is 220W, and typical consumption is 180W.
But those are for the entire system. Sun's page on the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) processor itself says that the CPU (in its 32-thread configuration) consumes 72W. The rest of that power consumption is from parts other than the CPU.
It's also worth noting Intel's Xeon spec sheet (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/specs.htm), which lists the fastest chips as consuming 130W for the CPU package alone! And that is with only four threads (two cores with 2-way hyperthreading.) I can guarantee you that a system based on one of these will have peak power consumption far greater than 220W.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 8, 02:16 AM
Just to let y'all know, unless someone else knows otherwise, Best Buy makes zero off Apple product sales (that haven't been marked up).
I read this thread and I noted that someone pointed out that BB apparently marks up some items -Airports, Time Machines, etc. I found this odd since Apple controls all the pricing, but eh, not going to question that since those are the facts I'm assuming (can't be bothered to go on a comparing spree).
Anyway, the iPad 2s aren't marked up, thus they make zero.
Each department should be meeting their budget daily. How do they do that? By selling products they make notional margin and that allows that department to meet their budget. On a slow, sh-tty day, a department may only be 70% to budget; on a fast, awesome day, a department may be 110% to budget.
But when you make zero off iPad sales, keeping them away from customers does not help notional margin. Doesn't bring them any closer to hitting budget. The only way they'd make money on that iPad sale would be selling accessories or the Black Tie protection. But that's entirely something else.
Best Buy makes zero notional margin on iPad sales, so they're not withholding stock to meet daily budgets.
I can't explain why they're doing this, but given my knowledge, I can invalidate the claim that managers are hoarding iPads so that they can meet budget every day.
Cheers! :D
This is not entirely true. The apple tv2 best buy sells for $99 and best buys cost is around $90. Also, best buy honors student discounts on apple products. Apple does not reimburse bby for that. You really think bby is going to pay customers to buy apple products?
Anyway, I hate bby. I used to work there. Few of the employees give a **** about the customer.
I read this thread and I noted that someone pointed out that BB apparently marks up some items -Airports, Time Machines, etc. I found this odd since Apple controls all the pricing, but eh, not going to question that since those are the facts I'm assuming (can't be bothered to go on a comparing spree).
Anyway, the iPad 2s aren't marked up, thus they make zero.
Each department should be meeting their budget daily. How do they do that? By selling products they make notional margin and that allows that department to meet their budget. On a slow, sh-tty day, a department may only be 70% to budget; on a fast, awesome day, a department may be 110% to budget.
But when you make zero off iPad sales, keeping them away from customers does not help notional margin. Doesn't bring them any closer to hitting budget. The only way they'd make money on that iPad sale would be selling accessories or the Black Tie protection. But that's entirely something else.
Best Buy makes zero notional margin on iPad sales, so they're not withholding stock to meet daily budgets.
I can't explain why they're doing this, but given my knowledge, I can invalidate the claim that managers are hoarding iPads so that they can meet budget every day.
Cheers! :D
This is not entirely true. The apple tv2 best buy sells for $99 and best buys cost is around $90. Also, best buy honors student discounts on apple products. Apple does not reimburse bby for that. You really think bby is going to pay customers to buy apple products?
Anyway, I hate bby. I used to work there. Few of the employees give a **** about the customer.
JeffDM
Sep 16, 03:56 PM
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I've been using dual processor Windows computers for a few years now and it works fine, I can't imagine dual core being any different. For quad core, I think THG showed that a Kentsfield showed significant performance benefits over a Conroe for many Windows programs. The media encoders showed very nearly a 2x performance difference.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I've been using dual processor Windows computers for a few years now and it works fine, I can't imagine dual core being any different. For quad core, I think THG showed that a Kentsfield showed significant performance benefits over a Conroe for many Windows programs. The media encoders showed very nearly a 2x performance difference.
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:14 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
BlizzardBomb
Aug 27, 12:58 PM
Um....
E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz: Release price $316
T2400 Yonah 1.83GHz: Release price $294
That's the old pricing mate :) 1.83 GHz Yonah/ Merom is $240.
E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz: Release price $316
T2400 Yonah 1.83GHz: Release price $294
That's the old pricing mate :) 1.83 GHz Yonah/ Merom is $240.
QuarterSwede
Apr 25, 01:45 PM
Ah, the perfect storm! A (probable) bug that does not clip the data the way Google does it, a story that gets reported months ago and then it forgotten, a new story that appears and blows it way out of proportion, news articles that imply Apple is SPYING ON YOU (even though Apple does not get this information), and lots of ignorance spewed all over the Web.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
*sigh* This is turning into another Antennagate, misinformation and all. Steve is going to have to do more than that email to get people to shut up about what is a very small issue that is being exploded into a very large misinformation campaign.
Pretty well said.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
*sigh* This is turning into another Antennagate, misinformation and all. Steve is going to have to do more than that email to get people to shut up about what is a very small issue that is being exploded into a very large misinformation campaign.
Pretty well said.
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 12:10 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 02:03 PM
EDGE is not meant to compare with EVDO, UTMS is.
Can you imagine them making the phone only for CDMA? That translates to "US only." There will be a GSM version, it will most likely support UTMS, which is as good or better than EVDO.
Even assuming for the sake of argument, which I don't in reality, that CDMA is better than GSM for voice, the annoyance of not being able to swap SIM cards is enough for me to avoid it.
That and the fact I can't use it anywhere outside the US.
I agree that EVDO is more analgous to UTMS than EDGE, but for now in most places UTMS is not present... esp the US. So when I compare CDMA technologies to GSM technologies for domestic carriers, the CDMA camp wins hands down.
There are many places CDMA is used outside the US. From the maps I've seen, much of Asia, Australia, and the Americas have CDMA coverage. And has I mentioned in a previous post, the big 2 (VZW and Sprint) do offer hybrid CDMA/GSM phones (or at least they did... we can still apparently get them through our business).
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree about your point on SIM cards. I wish to God Sprint had SIM cards. I have a Treo 700p and I LOVE IT!!! But I don't want to haul it around with me everywhere. Frequently I steal my wife's new Samsung A900 since it's so thin and is hardly noticable in my pocket. I'd love to have the freedom to have 1 line and 2 phones.
Can you imagine them making the phone only for CDMA? That translates to "US only." There will be a GSM version, it will most likely support UTMS, which is as good or better than EVDO.
Even assuming for the sake of argument, which I don't in reality, that CDMA is better than GSM for voice, the annoyance of not being able to swap SIM cards is enough for me to avoid it.
That and the fact I can't use it anywhere outside the US.
I agree that EVDO is more analgous to UTMS than EDGE, but for now in most places UTMS is not present... esp the US. So when I compare CDMA technologies to GSM technologies for domestic carriers, the CDMA camp wins hands down.
There are many places CDMA is used outside the US. From the maps I've seen, much of Asia, Australia, and the Americas have CDMA coverage. And has I mentioned in a previous post, the big 2 (VZW and Sprint) do offer hybrid CDMA/GSM phones (or at least they did... we can still apparently get them through our business).
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree about your point on SIM cards. I wish to God Sprint had SIM cards. I have a Treo 700p and I LOVE IT!!! But I don't want to haul it around with me everywhere. Frequently I steal my wife's new Samsung A900 since it's so thin and is hardly noticable in my pocket. I'd love to have the freedom to have 1 line and 2 phones.
berkleeboy210
Jul 28, 07:43 AM
Looking forward to WWDC! Unfortunately I'll be returning home on a plane while the Keynote is going on.
At MacWorld when Steve announced the MacBook Pro's I literally fell off a chair. Here's hoping that the Plane won't do the same thing if the Pilot's are Mac Nuts! :D
At MacWorld when Steve announced the MacBook Pro's I literally fell off a chair. Here's hoping that the Plane won't do the same thing if the Pilot's are Mac Nuts! :D
macDrewd
Mar 26, 07:01 AM
Please release OS X Lion on a cool Apple flash drive :cool:
Really don't want another DVD, my shelf is full!
Really don't want another DVD, my shelf is full!
glassbathroom
Aug 17, 09:11 AM
Aren't there 2 chips though?
Doh! Yes, I new there was something wrong. Not planning on doing this anyway.
Doh! Yes, I new there was something wrong. Not planning on doing this anyway.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 10:41 AM
Well let's just check we are 'on the same page then'..
Ok, lets.
You agree Samsung have copied Apple, but only on things that you think don't really matter, while on the other hand anything where they don't look the same is terribly important..
I agree that the pictures in the media do show some ressemblance, but since I know better, I waited for a full claims analysis. The complaint is broad and to not seperate it in parts and claim a "black or white" answer is quite disingenuous.
In the many claims, the trademark icons remain to be seen by a court how much ressemblance/confusion there is. There is no point in arguing this since all it is at the end of the day is hot air. This one is up to a judge. Are these trademarks even registered ? If they are, what are they registered as and is Samsung's design really infringing on this ?
Not matters we'll settle here anyway.
As for the trade dress, again as I have stated, Apple claims a wide array of devices, yet the media have only posted pictures of the I9000. Other models don't share the ressemblances claimed here and it is baffling why Apple would put down their claims on all models. I question the validity of this one as it applies as broadly as the media paints it. Do I question for the I9000 ? Depends on the angle. In person, the phones are quite hard to confuse.
Courts will tell again.
Okay, got it!
At least wait for me to validate your "on the same page" before you get it. That is what good faith discussion is about. ;)
Ok, lets.
You agree Samsung have copied Apple, but only on things that you think don't really matter, while on the other hand anything where they don't look the same is terribly important..
I agree that the pictures in the media do show some ressemblance, but since I know better, I waited for a full claims analysis. The complaint is broad and to not seperate it in parts and claim a "black or white" answer is quite disingenuous.
In the many claims, the trademark icons remain to be seen by a court how much ressemblance/confusion there is. There is no point in arguing this since all it is at the end of the day is hot air. This one is up to a judge. Are these trademarks even registered ? If they are, what are they registered as and is Samsung's design really infringing on this ?
Not matters we'll settle here anyway.
As for the trade dress, again as I have stated, Apple claims a wide array of devices, yet the media have only posted pictures of the I9000. Other models don't share the ressemblances claimed here and it is baffling why Apple would put down their claims on all models. I question the validity of this one as it applies as broadly as the media paints it. Do I question for the I9000 ? Depends on the angle. In person, the phones are quite hard to confuse.
Courts will tell again.
Okay, got it!
At least wait for me to validate your "on the same page" before you get it. That is what good faith discussion is about. ;)
deadworlds
Mar 25, 11:58 PM
I'm really not looking forward to Lion at all. It just seems like a huge step backwards for those of us that use our computers as real computers and not toys. I have an ipad, an iphone and several macs, but they each have specific uses. I don't want my desktop machine to be anything like my ipad, one is for doing real work and doing my daily stuff on, the iOS gadgets are for fun games and browsing mostly.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I 100% agree!
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I 100% agree!
kingconsulting
Nov 28, 07:39 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
What your saying is totally obsurd. Who's fault is it the record companies are getting "squeezed"? Apple makes computers that can play the music also. Maybe they record companies should get a cut of that also?
The record companies are the ones who want something for nothing!
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
What your saying is totally obsurd. Who's fault is it the record companies are getting "squeezed"? Apple makes computers that can play the music also. Maybe they record companies should get a cut of that also?
The record companies are the ones who want something for nothing!
generik
Sep 19, 02:57 AM
1. It's Merom. Not Memrom, Menron, Memron or even L. Ron.
2. It won't be any cooler and it won't have greater battery life, period. Unless Apple has an amazing new design in store.
3. If you really, really, need a Merom, you should wait until the Santa Rosa platform so you don't complain that you got the inferior Merom. :rolleyes:
That is all.
These kinds of arguments are always lame.
1. People have lifes, not everyone is as much as a geek as you to know exactly how many transistors are in the next Intel processor. That is a code name by the way, Steve is not going to step up and go "Merom Macbook Pros!" on stage. He will look like a Moron.
2. So? Who is Apple to tell me how much of an improvement I should expect from something? When's the last time you seen Ford advertise "05 Ford Falcon! Fuel efficiency lags behind competing models by under 10%, same old reliable Ford Falcon with 2 year old design, still at same old price of $19,999"
If there is even so much as 0.001% of improvement you are gonna see Steve step up onto the keynote like a lappy dog and brag it to sound like it is greater than the 2nd coming of Jesus. That's sales 101 for you.
3. Meroms support 64 bit code. 64 bit code like Leopard (although we don't know for sure), or code like Vista x64 (that is 100% for sure). Sure, you might not mind running things in half arsed modes like some Frankinstein hybrid 32/64 bit system like Tiger is, but some people might actually *gasp* appreciate the ability to judge 64 bit code. Get off your high horse already, if you disagree just keep it to yourself. Not like your arrogant rants contributed anything either.
2. It won't be any cooler and it won't have greater battery life, period. Unless Apple has an amazing new design in store.
3. If you really, really, need a Merom, you should wait until the Santa Rosa platform so you don't complain that you got the inferior Merom. :rolleyes:
That is all.
These kinds of arguments are always lame.
1. People have lifes, not everyone is as much as a geek as you to know exactly how many transistors are in the next Intel processor. That is a code name by the way, Steve is not going to step up and go "Merom Macbook Pros!" on stage. He will look like a Moron.
2. So? Who is Apple to tell me how much of an improvement I should expect from something? When's the last time you seen Ford advertise "05 Ford Falcon! Fuel efficiency lags behind competing models by under 10%, same old reliable Ford Falcon with 2 year old design, still at same old price of $19,999"
If there is even so much as 0.001% of improvement you are gonna see Steve step up onto the keynote like a lappy dog and brag it to sound like it is greater than the 2nd coming of Jesus. That's sales 101 for you.
3. Meroms support 64 bit code. 64 bit code like Leopard (although we don't know for sure), or code like Vista x64 (that is 100% for sure). Sure, you might not mind running things in half arsed modes like some Frankinstein hybrid 32/64 bit system like Tiger is, but some people might actually *gasp* appreciate the ability to judge 64 bit code. Get off your high horse already, if you disagree just keep it to yourself. Not like your arrogant rants contributed anything either.
Gatesbasher
Mar 31, 09:06 PM
Yeah! That's what'll happen!
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
The everyday user has been buying Android phones in large numbers because they're cheap and are available on more carriers. This is not about everyday users, it's about the Fandroids who have been screaming "'Open' good, 'closed' bad!!" at the top of their lungs for the last three years.
I stand by my three groups: 1�indiscriminate Apple-haters (like you), 2�people who just want a team to root for: "Go Android!!" Right or wrong, and 3�the true believers in the open-source religion.
Now as I said before, the only truly "open" phones would be FreeRunners that Stallman assembles in his Mom's basement from components gleaned from dumpsters and hands out for free, so I have no idea what new savior they'll turn to to save them from the tyrant Jobs. Be funny if it was Microsoft!
And no, I see no "bias" in the article�I think you're using the Rupert Murdoch definition: "Facts I don't want anybody to hear."
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
The everyday user has been buying Android phones in large numbers because they're cheap and are available on more carriers. This is not about everyday users, it's about the Fandroids who have been screaming "'Open' good, 'closed' bad!!" at the top of their lungs for the last three years.
I stand by my three groups: 1�indiscriminate Apple-haters (like you), 2�people who just want a team to root for: "Go Android!!" Right or wrong, and 3�the true believers in the open-source religion.
Now as I said before, the only truly "open" phones would be FreeRunners that Stallman assembles in his Mom's basement from components gleaned from dumpsters and hands out for free, so I have no idea what new savior they'll turn to to save them from the tyrant Jobs. Be funny if it was Microsoft!
And no, I see no "bias" in the article�I think you're using the Rupert Murdoch definition: "Facts I don't want anybody to hear."
11thIndian
Apr 9, 10:07 PM
Uh, except I said "lots of professionals" and then you claimed I meant "professionals that I know" and then you acknowledged that it's not just professionals that I know.
Yes, I agreed there are professionals, but not LOTS of professionals. You don't know, cause... you don't know them, and neither do I. So these "lots" outside of your field of view may or may not be looking to switch. You see the difference, yes?
Yes, I agreed there are professionals, but not LOTS of professionals. You don't know, cause... you don't know them, and neither do I. So these "lots" outside of your field of view may or may not be looking to switch. You see the difference, yes?
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:24 PM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
Actually, you're WRONG!!!! to say he's wrong. You're trying to say that every GUI element was created at Xerox? EVERY one of them? Sorry, but your argument here is akin to something Fox News would air.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
Actually, you're WRONG!!!! to say he's wrong. You're trying to say that every GUI element was created at Xerox? EVERY one of them? Sorry, but your argument here is akin to something Fox News would air.
dsnort
Aug 7, 04:41 PM
As a recent switcher to Mac, I have had a lot of experience with M$'s System Restore function. It is NOT a "go back and find that data I deleted" application. It IS a "can we please go back to a time when this computer wasn't totally ********* up" application.
toddybody
Apr 6, 10:57 AM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Ehhh...youre missing his point (and being a bit rude). The IGP on SB is NOT as capable as nVidia's 320M. Certainly the SB architecture will yield great processing improvements to the MBA (over the C2D)...but graphics will most likely take a hit. That was his concern.
Ehhh...youre missing his point (and being a bit rude). The IGP on SB is NOT as capable as nVidia's 320M. Certainly the SB architecture will yield great processing improvements to the MBA (over the C2D)...but graphics will most likely take a hit. That was his concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment