bigmc6000
Jul 27, 09:59 AM
"...Core 2 Duo chips need less electricity, drawing just 65 watts compared to the Pentium 4’s 95 watts and Pentium D’s 130 watts"
Good Lord - does anybody know what the G5 is? I'd imagine that the elaborate cooling system in the current G5 towers probably won't be needed it it's running anything like the D's...
And about the WWDC, I think it is possible for Merom laptops, Core 2 iMacs, Leopard Preview, Mac Pro's and possibly Movie service. However, I think the movie thing could be replaced by a larger capacity nano but that's about it. Only 1, at most, iTunes/iPod announcement with all the Mac stuff that should be addressed.
Good Lord - does anybody know what the G5 is? I'd imagine that the elaborate cooling system in the current G5 towers probably won't be needed it it's running anything like the D's...
And about the WWDC, I think it is possible for Merom laptops, Core 2 iMacs, Leopard Preview, Mac Pro's and possibly Movie service. However, I think the movie thing could be replaced by a larger capacity nano but that's about it. Only 1, at most, iTunes/iPod announcement with all the Mac stuff that should be addressed.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 11:37 AM
I wouldn't want to say I told you so but... :eek: :p :D Where's Multimedia? This is exciting!
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...
I'm still gonna wait for the Clovertown option to appear in the BTO page, then price retail Clovertowns a Fry's before I decide if I'll let Apple to my upgrade or do it myself according to which way cost less. But I really don't want to kill my warranty on day one. So it'll be academic since they are going retail in a month prolly before Apple adds the Clovertown option to the BTO page although they were pretty Johnny On The Spot with the C2D iMacs.
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...
I'm still gonna wait for the Clovertown option to appear in the BTO page, then price retail Clovertowns a Fry's before I decide if I'll let Apple to my upgrade or do it myself according to which way cost less. But I really don't want to kill my warranty on day one. So it'll be academic since they are going retail in a month prolly before Apple adds the Clovertown option to the BTO page although they were pretty Johnny On The Spot with the C2D iMacs.
Hal Jordan
Apr 11, 10:26 PM
No worries. I'm in need for a change. I've been impressed with the Galaxy S but not enough to get rid of my 3GS. But the Galaxy S2 looks AMAZING!!! 4.3 inch SuperAmoled Plus display, 1.2 GHz Dual Core, 1 GB RAM, 8 Meg rear camera, 2 Meg front Camera, Insanely wicked 1080P recording (shocked at how clean the recordings look), completely customizable UI, the list goes on an on.....It'll be a big change for me, but change happens. This thing is better equipped than a Tablet!!!! SOLD!!!!
toddybody
Mar 26, 04:33 AM
So its like, the complete version er...not quite done yet, but nearly finished..
:confused:
:confused:
Benjy91
Mar 26, 12:39 PM
Windows 7 is available in six editions, and three of those (bolded) are available through normal retail channels.
- Windows 7 Starter
- Windows 7 Home Basic
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Enterprise
- Windows 7 Ultimate
You also need to decide on the architecture before purchase, unlike OS X.
If you count those (they are packaged in different boxes after all), this brings the number up to 11. Starter doesn't come in a 64-bit edition.
Finally, this of course doesn't include the server editions of the Windows 7 kernel.
The only versions of Windows 7 Ive seen available at retail are Home Premium, Proffessional and Ultimate.
Starter and Home basic only come bundled with Netbooks.
And if you're choosing which version of Windows you want for home use, why would Enterprise and Server versions even come into it?
So if you're looking to pick up Windows 7 for your PC, the only serious choices are Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate, and is it really that confusing to compare a feature list of 3 versions and decide which features you need?
- Windows 7 Starter
- Windows 7 Home Basic
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Enterprise
- Windows 7 Ultimate
You also need to decide on the architecture before purchase, unlike OS X.
If you count those (they are packaged in different boxes after all), this brings the number up to 11. Starter doesn't come in a 64-bit edition.
Finally, this of course doesn't include the server editions of the Windows 7 kernel.
The only versions of Windows 7 Ive seen available at retail are Home Premium, Proffessional and Ultimate.
Starter and Home basic only come bundled with Netbooks.
And if you're choosing which version of Windows you want for home use, why would Enterprise and Server versions even come into it?
So if you're looking to pick up Windows 7 for your PC, the only serious choices are Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate, and is it really that confusing to compare a feature list of 3 versions and decide which features you need?
SmileyBlast!
Apr 11, 12:28 PM
They should stick to the June update each year. I know it may not be their fault but Apple need to keep the iPhone up to date, otherwise they will lose ground. Mobile phones are very competitive.
I definitely agree with this.
They need to keep their Market Share and Lead position with regular updates to the iPhone franchise.
I definitely agree with this.
They need to keep their Market Share and Lead position with regular updates to the iPhone franchise.
Nuvi
Apr 12, 09:27 AM
The SuperMeet stage show aka FCP (or if **** hits the fan then iMovie Pro) preview begins at 7 pm.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 10:14 AM
At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2!
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Why don't they just call it: Big Mac.
I think that's the best name I've heard in this thread (sorry, Chundles)
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Why don't they just call it: Big Mac.
I think that's the best name I've heard in this thread (sorry, Chundles)
miamijim
Apr 8, 01:35 AM
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)
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
He does not have to tell you anything... in fact if he did his job would be on the line.
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
He does not have to tell you anything... in fact if he did his job would be on the line.
thedarkhorse
Apr 12, 06:09 PM
http://twitter.com/#!/fcpsupermeet
There's supposed to be live updates on that twitter feed.
There's supposed to be live updates on that twitter feed.
sampdoria
Jun 14, 01:46 PM
I just visited my local radio shack near my office and spoke with a sales person who seemed pretty well prepared for this, but take it for what it's worth...
Pre-order: In-store at 7am EST. He suggested to pre-order as soon as possible, because by the time it reaches the west coast, they could run out. "They" meaning radio shack, he wasn't speaking for apple or att. And yes, pre-ordering guarantees me an iphone on launch-day.
Launch-day: This store guaranteed me to have them on the 24th. And it will open earlier than usual (between 5am and 6am), depending on how the pre-orders go.
Trade-ins: Any cell phones, active and non-active ones (with chargers) will be accepted on launch-day. I have razrs and blackberries that I will happily trade in for a credit towards new iphones. This is why I'm leaning towards radioshack more so than the others.
Tip: Get to know your salesperson and vice-versa, before the whole madness begins, that way you'll get better service and no surprises.
-Samp
Boston
Pre-order: In-store at 7am EST. He suggested to pre-order as soon as possible, because by the time it reaches the west coast, they could run out. "They" meaning radio shack, he wasn't speaking for apple or att. And yes, pre-ordering guarantees me an iphone on launch-day.
Launch-day: This store guaranteed me to have them on the 24th. And it will open earlier than usual (between 5am and 6am), depending on how the pre-orders go.
Trade-ins: Any cell phones, active and non-active ones (with chargers) will be accepted on launch-day. I have razrs and blackberries that I will happily trade in for a credit towards new iphones. This is why I'm leaning towards radioshack more so than the others.
Tip: Get to know your salesperson and vice-versa, before the whole madness begins, that way you'll get better service and no surprises.
-Samp
Boston
onemorething
Aug 5, 08:50 PM
I did a little digging and the most amount of time between any given ipod release is 10 months. I did more research and apple has released a new ipod on average every 9-10 months; the last major ipod was released in oct. 2005. I say any given tuesday between now and october or expo paris:rolleyes:
Lord Blackadder
Nov 28, 09:49 PM
It would be a nice idea.
Nice. idea. For whom, you greedy scum? :mad:
**** them and their greed. I shall say no more.
Nice. idea. For whom, you greedy scum? :mad:
**** them and their greed. I shall say no more.
Grokgod
Jul 28, 03:36 PM
merk850
dont take it back.
I dont think that the difference will be that much, with the new systems.
If your happy with its performance then keep it.
A mild CPU boost isnt all that, and I doubt that the video cards will be upped that much.
I wouldnt take the hit in money lost, cause you can always sell it later down the line and get the lastest and greatest thats really a must buy.
dont take it back.
I dont think that the difference will be that much, with the new systems.
If your happy with its performance then keep it.
A mild CPU boost isnt all that, and I doubt that the video cards will be upped that much.
I wouldnt take the hit in money lost, cause you can always sell it later down the line and get the lastest and greatest thats really a must buy.
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.
gnasher729
Aug 27, 06:54 AM
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Very simple. What these companies are all afraid off: You think of some way to improve a Macintosh, or an iPod. You have the same idea as thousand other people, including the guys at Apple. You send the idea to them. They implement the idea - which they developed on their own, independent of what you sent them, and what thousand other people thought of. You see your idea implemented and promptly sue Apple for millions of dollars. The case ends up in front of a jury full of idiots who promptly take your side against the evil corporation and give you millions of dollars.
All that mess can easily be prevented by not accepting any ideas from people who are not paid by the company.
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Very simple. What these companies are all afraid off: You think of some way to improve a Macintosh, or an iPod. You have the same idea as thousand other people, including the guys at Apple. You send the idea to them. They implement the idea - which they developed on their own, independent of what you sent them, and what thousand other people thought of. You see your idea implemented and promptly sue Apple for millions of dollars. The case ends up in front of a jury full of idiots who promptly take your side against the evil corporation and give you millions of dollars.
All that mess can easily be prevented by not accepting any ideas from people who are not paid by the company.
DotCom2
Apr 27, 09:25 AM
Problem is, if you turn "Location Services" off, then you can't use "Find My iPhone" which I think is quite a useful feature! :(
milo
Jul 27, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.
The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.
JoeC2k6
Jun 14, 10:33 AM
radioshack just offered me 36 cents to $40 for a trade in on a 3GS......really great trade in value at RS...
ugp
Jun 23, 05:13 PM
I confirmed today that my store will not have any for release day tomorrow, i got the district managers phone number and left a message about wanting my 184 dollar gift card put on my debit card instead due to false advertising that they would be doing Pre-orders instead of reservations which led me to believe that i would get a phone on release day, as a result i am forced to go camp out at the apple store overnight in 91 degree heat in a few hours with my fingers crossed that i get one. All of this could have been avoided if they didn't post on their twitter on June 9th that they were taking part in release day.
Good luck with that one as that is not going to happen. They did not advertise Pre-Orders. They said reserves only. They told no money from you nor did they hold credit card information on file like Apple does.
Good luck with that one as that is not going to happen. They did not advertise Pre-Orders. They said reserves only. They told no money from you nor did they hold credit card information on file like Apple does.
takao
Dec 8, 01:22 PM
another great unlockable car: bspec the mazda miata race: Furai (?
) Concept 08
made the japanese only lvl 18 cup not only easy but the most one side race ever
with some tuning 399 kw at a 650 kg which makes it pretty mean
) Concept 08
made the japanese only lvl 18 cup not only easy but the most one side race ever
with some tuning 399 kw at a 650 kg which makes it pretty mean
JoshH
Aug 7, 02:06 PM
Looks like a good time to let my PM D1.25Ghz G4 retire... The new MP must be at least 10 times faster. :eek:
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Me too. I've tortured my poor PM dual 867 long enough. Retirement would be good.
... in a nice place where she'd be treated well, of course.
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Me too. I've tortured my poor PM dual 867 long enough. Retirement would be good.
... in a nice place where she'd be treated well, of course.
-aggie-
Jun 22, 08:08 AM
I'm tired of wading through all these posts. I didn't see it mentioned, but does anyone know if the Shack is carrying the 32GB iPhone 4?
princealfie
Nov 29, 11:26 AM
I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
Uhhh... right. :eek:
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
Uhhh... right. :eek:
No comments:
Post a Comment