p0intblank
Sep 5, 12:28 PM
It's Showtime.
That definitely means movies, no doubts! :D
That definitely means movies, no doubts! :D
nitynate
Sep 12, 02:41 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Balli
Aug 29, 04:17 AM
I just bought my iMac before Apple went Intel, so i have no plans to upgrade just yet. I will probably hold out until summer 2008 and then get a MacBook Pro with the following specs:
17" Screen (1920 x 1200)
3.0 Ghz Dual Core Processor (Santa Rosa)
2 GB RAM
512 MB Graphics Card
250 GB Hard Drive (Perpendicular)
HD-DVD or Blue-Ray Drive
17" Screen (1920 x 1200)
3.0 Ghz Dual Core Processor (Santa Rosa)
2 GB RAM
512 MB Graphics Card
250 GB Hard Drive (Perpendicular)
HD-DVD or Blue-Ray Drive
rychencop
Jan 1, 07:57 PM
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
fblack
Sep 10, 12:25 PM
I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...
I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough. Plus looking at what Macworld had to say about the 2.16 C2D and the potential for the 24" 2.33 it sure does narrow the performance some what and this might be what apple is thinking.
More significant, the 2.16GHz system narrowed the performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro product lines. With twice the number of processor cores, all running faster than the iMac, the Mac Pro had a definite advantage in this match up. But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities, most results showed the Mac Pro between 20 and 30 percent faster than the 2.16GHz iMac. I expect that test results of the new 24-inch model�with its faster graphics and the optional 2.33GHz processor upgrade�could close this performance gap even further.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php
I cant wait to see the benchmarks on the 24". :)
But dont get me wrong I would still prefer a headless tower. :cool:
I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough. Plus looking at what Macworld had to say about the 2.16 C2D and the potential for the 24" 2.33 it sure does narrow the performance some what and this might be what apple is thinking.
More significant, the 2.16GHz system narrowed the performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro product lines. With twice the number of processor cores, all running faster than the iMac, the Mac Pro had a definite advantage in this match up. But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities, most results showed the Mac Pro between 20 and 30 percent faster than the 2.16GHz iMac. I expect that test results of the new 24-inch model�with its faster graphics and the optional 2.33GHz processor upgrade�could close this performance gap even further.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php
I cant wait to see the benchmarks on the 24". :)
But dont get me wrong I would still prefer a headless tower. :cool:
maflynn
Mar 23, 04:32 PM
The seemingly only purpose of this app is to avoid the checkpoints could be dangerous to those of us who don't drink and drive. They should pull any app.
zap2
Apr 11, 03:22 AM
All those monthly bills add up. I'm glad I never bought an iPhone, for example, when they first came out. I've saved a ton of money not buying the required data plan that goes comes with it. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like our priorities are all wrong and I agree.
I don't see what your point is...how does that respond to the person you quoted? He was saying people made bad choice due to keep oil and you say "I'm glad I didn't get an iPhone right away"
The price of gas living in suburbia is much more of a drain on a household then an extra 20 dollars for iPhone data. 20 bucks is nothing in a month of gas. And for the amount of usage iPhones often get(like in my case) it is well worth the money for many people.
Don't criticize people for making different choices then yourself
I don't see what your point is...how does that respond to the person you quoted? He was saying people made bad choice due to keep oil and you say "I'm glad I didn't get an iPhone right away"
The price of gas living in suburbia is much more of a drain on a household then an extra 20 dollars for iPhone data. 20 bucks is nothing in a month of gas. And for the amount of usage iPhones often get(like in my case) it is well worth the money for many people.
Don't criticize people for making different choices then yourself
DeaconGraves
Apr 11, 07:50 AM
That's nice.
::Goes back to listening to podcasts streaming from his iPhone to his AppleTV::
::Goes back to listening to podcasts streaming from his iPhone to his AppleTV::
MacRumors
Aug 23, 05:07 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple and Creative have resolved their legal disputes (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/aug/23settlement.html) which started on May 15th of this year when Creative and Apple sued each other (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060519080315.shtml) claiming patent infringement. According to a joint-press release, Apple will pay Creative $100 million USD to settle all outstanding lawsuits.
"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "This settlement resolves all of our differences with Creative, including the five lawsuits currently pending between the companies, and removes the uncertainty and distraction of prolonged litigation."
Apple and Creative have resolved their legal disputes (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/aug/23settlement.html) which started on May 15th of this year when Creative and Apple sued each other (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060519080315.shtml) claiming patent infringement. According to a joint-press release, Apple will pay Creative $100 million USD to settle all outstanding lawsuits.
"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "This settlement resolves all of our differences with Creative, including the five lawsuits currently pending between the companies, and removes the uncertainty and distraction of prolonged litigation."
Freg3000
Nov 13, 04:05 PM
Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
I believe you are mistaken. As far as I know, there is no risk of losing a copyright if you failed to defend against previous infringers. If I were to guess, I think you are talking about trademark law, which is different.
There are many classic examples, but currently Adobe has a policy where it seeks to prevent people from using "Photoshop" in a generalized way, since if it solidly becomes a synonym for digital photo manipulation in the language, they will lose their trademark. If Adobe is shown to not go after those who use Photoshop in a generalized manner, in the future they will be less able to defend against it in the future.
As far as I know, this has no relevancy to the current situation, since we are talking about copyright, not trademarks.
I believe you are mistaken. As far as I know, there is no risk of losing a copyright if you failed to defend against previous infringers. If I were to guess, I think you are talking about trademark law, which is different.
There are many classic examples, but currently Adobe has a policy where it seeks to prevent people from using "Photoshop" in a generalized way, since if it solidly becomes a synonym for digital photo manipulation in the language, they will lose their trademark. If Adobe is shown to not go after those who use Photoshop in a generalized manner, in the future they will be less able to defend against it in the future.
As far as I know, this has no relevancy to the current situation, since we are talking about copyright, not trademarks.
danielwsmithee
Apr 25, 02:38 PM
I love the way so many people say that 'nobody' has a use for the SuperDrive.
Admitedly from when I got my MacBook in 08 till 10 I only used it a few times but this year I've actually used it quite a bit.
I've been doing a spot of photography for a club and at the moment there isnt a cheaper more convenient way of giving a few hundred+ MB worth of images to someone than on a CD/DVD that just took 2 mins to burn.
Without the SuperDrive my only option would be either USB stick (which cost more and you never get given them back anyway) or online via drop box (which takes ages as my ADSL is pretty slow as I pretty much live out in the sticks.
So personally I hope they keep the SuperDrive on the pro... until USB sticks become a few pence each anyway
Or just get a USB optical drive and have the best of both worlds ... you won't be forced to lug around something you only use once in a while :)
Admitedly from when I got my MacBook in 08 till 10 I only used it a few times but this year I've actually used it quite a bit.
I've been doing a spot of photography for a club and at the moment there isnt a cheaper more convenient way of giving a few hundred+ MB worth of images to someone than on a CD/DVD that just took 2 mins to burn.
Without the SuperDrive my only option would be either USB stick (which cost more and you never get given them back anyway) or online via drop box (which takes ages as my ADSL is pretty slow as I pretty much live out in the sticks.
So personally I hope they keep the SuperDrive on the pro... until USB sticks become a few pence each anyway
Or just get a USB optical drive and have the best of both worlds ... you won't be forced to lug around something you only use once in a while :)
LaDirection
Mar 29, 02:06 PM
Bookmark this and pull it up in 4 years...
840quadra
Sep 13, 10:01 PM
2. Is it just me, or did the "pre-announcement" of a product that has an "internal" name of iTV, which may or may not be the products real name, strike anyone else as very un-Apple like.
Your first point is intriguing and has me thinking too, however your 2nd is not too far from being "Apple". Apple has used code names for years. It is a known fact and something that is well documented throughout the web at credible sites like folklore.org and the likes run by former Apple employees.
Unless you were actually commenting on the "pre-announcement�" itself and not the codename
Regards,
840Quadra
AKA Cyclone
Your first point is intriguing and has me thinking too, however your 2nd is not too far from being "Apple". Apple has used code names for years. It is a known fact and something that is well documented throughout the web at credible sites like folklore.org and the likes run by former Apple employees.
Unless you were actually commenting on the "pre-announcement�" itself and not the codename
Regards,
840Quadra
AKA Cyclone
Machead III
Aug 31, 02:08 PM
There will are not relay organized at AppleExpo
LMFAO! http://www.starshipbuilder.com/forums/images/smilies/laugh.gif
LMFAO! http://www.starshipbuilder.com/forums/images/smilies/laugh.gif
MacLawyer
Apr 4, 12:14 PM
Mac...a computer to die for.
baryon
Apr 20, 01:25 PM
That's pretty ridiculous...
aristobrat
Sep 26, 08:07 PM
YES! Finally, I reap benefits from being with Cingular!!!! :D
Meh, I know, bitter doesn't go my shoes, but ... heh
It's the second or third carriers' customers that will benefit from all of the weird things that all of you early adopters will help discover. ;)
Or at least that's how it's worked here at Verizon. By the time RIM gets around to releasing a CDMA BlackBerry version of a device, all of the bugs are pretty well worked out.
Meh, I know, bitter doesn't go my shoes, but ... heh
It's the second or third carriers' customers that will benefit from all of the weird things that all of you early adopters will help discover. ;)
Or at least that's how it's worked here at Verizon. By the time RIM gets around to releasing a CDMA BlackBerry version of a device, all of the bugs are pretty well worked out.
AidenShaw
Sep 11, 09:45 PM
I mean, imagine where we'd be if Steve Jobs didn't have the forsight to develop an Intel version of OS X from the very beginning, 6 years ago?
Or, that Jobs had the foresight not to kill the x86 build of NextStep when he renamed it OSX.
They didn't create an x86 port, they simply maintained the x86 support when they added PPC support and the rest of OSX
Just like Microsoft for years maintained the PowerPC support in NT - which made it very easy to put a PPC chip in the Xbox 360.
2007 looks like it's definitely going to be the year of the Mac!
Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D
Or, that Jobs had the foresight not to kill the x86 build of NextStep when he renamed it OSX.
They didn't create an x86 port, they simply maintained the x86 support when they added PPC support and the rest of OSX
Just like Microsoft for years maintained the PowerPC support in NT - which made it very easy to put a PPC chip in the Xbox 360.
2007 looks like it's definitely going to be the year of the Mac!
Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:08 PM
So I guess this puts every iPhone VNC client in violation of Apple's terms as it would be displaying Apple copyrighted images...
I'm on RA's side on this one!
No, VNC displaying the entire screen from the computer and Apple has a built in VNC server in their OS. This is a matter of taking the icon images themselves and using them for another purpose in a client/server application rather than in an app running on the mac itself. It is a clear case of copyright infringement. RA could have avoided all of this by simply providing their own licensed icons.
@guet: You should read what you wrote. You are proving yourself wrong with your own points. They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.
I'm on RA's side on this one!
No, VNC displaying the entire screen from the computer and Apple has a built in VNC server in their OS. This is a matter of taking the icon images themselves and using them for another purpose in a client/server application rather than in an app running on the mac itself. It is a clear case of copyright infringement. RA could have avoided all of this by simply providing their own licensed icons.
@guet: You should read what you wrote. You are proving yourself wrong with your own points. They are licensed for use on a mac, not for distribution to a client machine be it an iphone, Blackberry or Android.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 05:29 PM
If you need 16 cores, shouldn't you get a rack with four Xserves (once the new Xserves with Intel-processors become available)?
Sure, getting the same in one (quiet) box for the price of one box would be preferable but this is not available yet.
Or, do you mean you want 16 cores but right now you are not willing to spent what it takes to get it.
(Sorry for the tone, I would like to have 16 cores for my work as well.)What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.Glad I won't be alone. :) We are an unusual small group finding a reason to need a lot of cores. I think those who don't don't understand us.I still wonder if all this video editing is personal or for profit. :rolleyes:Personal. I'm just trying to archive Television recordings - simple. But currently it takes longer than the shows run IE about 3x time spent watching, then crushing each show. That's a very time consuming thing to get hung up on. And I'm sure it makes no sense to 90% of those here.
Sure, getting the same in one (quiet) box for the price of one box would be preferable but this is not available yet.
Or, do you mean you want 16 cores but right now you are not willing to spent what it takes to get it.
(Sorry for the tone, I would like to have 16 cores for my work as well.)What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.Glad I won't be alone. :) We are an unusual small group finding a reason to need a lot of cores. I think those who don't don't understand us.I still wonder if all this video editing is personal or for profit. :rolleyes:Personal. I'm just trying to archive Television recordings - simple. But currently it takes longer than the shows run IE about 3x time spent watching, then crushing each show. That's a very time consuming thing to get hung up on. And I'm sure it makes no sense to 90% of those here.
G4DP
Mar 22, 04:11 PM
2012... 18 month update cycle? Far, far too long. No way... If that's the case, for the first time in 27 years, Apple doesn't get my money.
Have you paid any attention to the upgrade cycle since the switch to Intel for the Pro Towers?
Have you paid any attention to the upgrade cycle since the switch to Intel for the Pro Towers?
Erwin-Br
Apr 20, 12:15 PM
time to do research?
if you are not doing anything wrong, what is there to worry about?
Because the definition of "wrong" can be changed and stretched by the government. Think "Red scare".
But since you're so open, why don't you go ahead and give me the password to your Email account?
if you are not doing anything wrong, what is there to worry about?
Because the definition of "wrong" can be changed and stretched by the government. Think "Red scare".
But since you're so open, why don't you go ahead and give me the password to your Email account?
min_t
Apr 22, 11:29 AM
Should I be pissed having bought the new SSD MB Air 4 months ago?:confused: I deserved some TB speeds.
BlindMellon
Apr 22, 06:32 AM
How does streaming music to my iPhone help me, when O2 cap my Internet usage, and then charge when you use more.
this service is for apple fans who will swallow anything apple sells and ask for more, even as they pay extra data charges to listen to music they already own.
this service is for apple fans who will swallow anything apple sells and ask for more, even as they pay extra data charges to listen to music they already own.