meli
May 3, 07:38 AM
It doesn't even get above the fold on Apple's homepage.
bigmc6000
Jul 28, 07:54 AM
I actually hope it's moderately successful. Hopefully then, Apple will see fit to reduce their pricing schema on the iPods.
Realistically, it could go either way. Despite the debacle that is Windows, Microsoft has had a great deal of success with the XBox. I wouldn't be surprised if Zune isn't as bad as most members of MacRumors will make it out to be.
~Joe
Really depends on yoru defintion of success. Popularity wise it's been successful (360 is helped solely by the fact it's the only HD player out there right now) but as far as the stock holders and business men are concerned it's been a debacle - they've lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the XBox and have still yet to see a single positve quarter, financially speaking, since it's inception.
Realistically, it could go either way. Despite the debacle that is Windows, Microsoft has had a great deal of success with the XBox. I wouldn't be surprised if Zune isn't as bad as most members of MacRumors will make it out to be.
~Joe
Really depends on yoru defintion of success. Popularity wise it's been successful (360 is helped solely by the fact it's the only HD player out there right now) but as far as the stock holders and business men are concerned it's been a debacle - they've lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the XBox and have still yet to see a single positve quarter, financially speaking, since it's inception.
ridley182
Apr 21, 10:23 PM
"...to ensure our continued innovation..."
Ripping-off other companies' UI's is "innovation" now?
Samsung is such a pathetic company. They make nice TVs but still pathetic.
Ripping-off other companies' UI's is "innovation" now?
Samsung is such a pathetic company. They make nice TVs but still pathetic.
Sky Blue
Aug 15, 01:53 PM
Aww, no more blue filling up URL bar in Safari?
I like the definition in Spotlight
I like the definition in Spotlight
Leondunkleyc
Aug 15, 03:29 PM
.
maclaptop
Apr 21, 10:15 PM
Apples got to be thrilled, they got just what they wanted. A good dose of conflict and confrontation.
I truly believe Steve is addicted to chaos.
I truly believe Steve is addicted to chaos.
Corey Grandy
Jan 28, 09:06 AM
I missed seeing it in theaters. That's a great deal for the price.
I actually had never seen it, just didn't get around to it. I just bought it because it was a Michael Cera movie :P
On-topic, this renewed itself today:
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/2816/26869981.jpg
I actually had never seen it, just didn't get around to it. I just bought it because it was a Michael Cera movie :P
On-topic, this renewed itself today:
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/2816/26869981.jpg
WildPalms
Oct 24, 05:23 PM
This is incorrect.
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".
The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment on the same device where Vista is already installed.
So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.
In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.
No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".
The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment on the same device where Vista is already installed.
So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.
In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.
No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.
FreeState
May 1, 10:05 PM
I'm glad he's no longer a threat, but really wish we could have caught him with out spending ourselves into generations of debt...
Le Big Mac
Oct 23, 11:28 AM
So this is true?? I suppose this isn't any different than Apple saying that you can't run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, is it?
That's what makes all the rancor about this so funny. Depending on the reading of this EULA provision, Apple's limits are still as, or more, restrictive than Microsoft's.
That's what makes all the rancor about this so funny. Depending on the reading of this EULA provision, Apple's limits are still as, or more, restrictive than Microsoft's.
zasr4325
Jan 29, 02:58 AM
I'm currently testing one out :)
I can see that the White keys are still underneath, but where did you get those black 'covers' (for lack of a better word) for the wireless keyboard in the background?
I can see that the White keys are still underneath, but where did you get those black 'covers' (for lack of a better word) for the wireless keyboard in the background?
arn
Jun 6, 07:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
15 minutes?
45 Seconds is all it took to get the facts...
Google search: "android market return policy"
First result: http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-policies.html
For those too lazy to click...
"Returns: You have 24 hours from the time of purchase (not download) to return any applications purchased from Android Market for a full refund of any applicable fees."
Summary: 24 Hours, not 15 minutes.
This is such a great feature that would perhaps stimulate fair pricing and quality paid apps
Problem with this feature is it kills viability fo many non casual games. Pretty much most story/campaign games can be solved in that time period.
arn
15 minutes?
45 Seconds is all it took to get the facts...
Google search: "android market return policy"
First result: http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-policies.html
For those too lazy to click...
"Returns: You have 24 hours from the time of purchase (not download) to return any applications purchased from Android Market for a full refund of any applicable fees."
Summary: 24 Hours, not 15 minutes.
This is such a great feature that would perhaps stimulate fair pricing and quality paid apps
Problem with this feature is it kills viability fo many non casual games. Pretty much most story/campaign games can be solved in that time period.
arn
Penn Jennings
Apr 19, 05:53 PM
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Welcome!
CPU and GPU are both important. There is one critical difference between CPU and GPU though and thats this:
A user can usually wait on on the CPU with no impact other than the fact that they had to wait. Using your example. You waited 40 minutes. A CPU that that was twice as fast might have reduced your wait to 25 minutes. A CPU that was half a fast would have increased your wait time to maybe 75 minutes. The only consequence of CPU speed is time in general. There is rarely a difference in the final product.
GPU is different, GPU is often used to perform realtime calculations (Game or movie frames). Because the frames are related to a specific point in time, a difference is GPU performance can make the difference between usable and unusable. For that reason, people that like, want or need GPU performance tend to be focal.
In my experience, poor GPU performance bugs me more than poor CPU performance. You can't just wait for the GPU to get done, like you can with a CPU. There does have to be a balance though.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Welcome!
CPU and GPU are both important. There is one critical difference between CPU and GPU though and thats this:
A user can usually wait on on the CPU with no impact other than the fact that they had to wait. Using your example. You waited 40 minutes. A CPU that that was twice as fast might have reduced your wait to 25 minutes. A CPU that was half a fast would have increased your wait time to maybe 75 minutes. The only consequence of CPU speed is time in general. There is rarely a difference in the final product.
GPU is different, GPU is often used to perform realtime calculations (Game or movie frames). Because the frames are related to a specific point in time, a difference is GPU performance can make the difference between usable and unusable. For that reason, people that like, want or need GPU performance tend to be focal.
In my experience, poor GPU performance bugs me more than poor CPU performance. You can't just wait for the GPU to get done, like you can with a CPU. There does have to be a balance though.
grigby1
Sep 30, 11:30 AM
Three to four bars of 3G at my house in suburban Detroit and I'm lucky if I can make a call and if I can, half the time it's dropped. And nobody can hear me anyway. I rarely receive calls and the missed call and voice-mails notifications don't show up till I leave home. Had Verizon for years and I can't remember ever dropping a call anywhere. But I love my iPhone and never did like Verizon.
mattster16
Sep 30, 09:47 AM
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
strange days
Nov 4, 07:56 AM
...guys, I was wondering...
Does BOOT CAMP already support DUAL-CORE under XP ?
Sorry for the ignorance, just bought me a new Macbook and going to install either PARALLELS or BOOT CAMP ( waiting for VMWARE... :p )
Thanks for feedback !=)
Does BOOT CAMP already support DUAL-CORE under XP ?
Sorry for the ignorance, just bought me a new Macbook and going to install either PARALLELS or BOOT CAMP ( waiting for VMWARE... :p )
Thanks for feedback !=)
wovel
Apr 13, 07:44 PM
Oh, this rumor, again (like the 4th time?)... :eek:
:rolleyes:
I am not sure why it won't die. I suppose they might, I just can not think of any reason why. The Apple TV as a STB is a much better fit for them. Might they sell this to tv makes as an embedded option. Maybe. Will they make their own TV, I still don't see the point.
:rolleyes:
I am not sure why it won't die. I suppose they might, I just can not think of any reason why. The Apple TV as a STB is a much better fit for them. Might they sell this to tv makes as an embedded option. Maybe. Will they make their own TV, I still don't see the point.
cms2
Apr 15, 01:50 PM
Looks like mostly bug fixes. Only thing new I have found is the result of putting a window out of focus.
iCal is still same design too.
Is there an option to make iCal look normal?
iCal is still same design too.
Is there an option to make iCal look normal?
NicoleRichie
Nov 6, 02:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
2 gen iPad 3G (ha ha), and a 240 GB SSD for my MB optical drive replacement.
2 gen iPad 3G (ha ha), and a 240 GB SSD for my MB optical drive replacement.
lsvtecjohn3
Apr 26, 12:14 PM
Anyone that thought it was going to be free is a fool. I just hope Apple prices it better than everyone else. I think Amazon is $20 for 20 GB a year. Apple should price it $15 for 20 GB a year
G4er?
Apr 11, 02:33 PM
It would be great to have a desktop Mac about the size of that RAID.
Donz0r
Jul 25, 12:37 AM
That's SO Cool. I really do imagine seeing this in the full screen iPods. it's so wierd that I JUST TODAY described the rumored 'true video ipod' and she says " well the screen would get fingerprints all over it" which I had never thought of. This is Perfect. I don't think that apple will release a full screen rumored true video ipod Without something exactly like this.
This is not only plausable, but I really think that it's probable. I'd bet money on this being with the true video ipod.
This is not only plausable, but I really think that it's probable. I'd bet money on this being with the true video ipod.
roadbloc
Dec 30, 08:28 AM
http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/SteelersFan%5B1%5D.JPG
A wild Snorlax appears....
A wild Snorlax appears....
VanNess
Jul 28, 01:09 PM
Had Apple licensed FP a year ago like a lot of people were begging... they probably would have had to license it to MS.