Fuchal
Apr 23, 05:08 PM
Uhmm, how about 640x480? Or less, with the vic 20.
I remember my pos compaq 386sx2 that came defaulted to 800x600... In 1994.
Back ot, why is apple dealing wih 3200x3200? Are they abandoning the tradition 4:3, 16x9 or 16:9 aspect ratio?
iPad wallpapers are also square, so they can be rotated evenly
I remember my pos compaq 386sx2 that came defaulted to 800x600... In 1994.
Back ot, why is apple dealing wih 3200x3200? Are they abandoning the tradition 4:3, 16x9 or 16:9 aspect ratio?
iPad wallpapers are also square, so they can be rotated evenly
h1r0ll3r
Apr 26, 02:38 PM
Poor Symbian. Nobody likes you. Even "Other" is more desirable than you :(
Jelite
Mar 29, 11:50 AM
Why not just use an app that lets you stream from your computer at home? why pay for online storage when you already have it?
marksman
Apr 18, 04:18 PM
I think they are all adults, and they keep these things very separate. If someone said to their colleagues in another department "don't buy screens from Samsung, we are involved in a lawsuit" or "don't sell screens to Apple, we are involved in a lawsuit", the answer would be "are you mad? They are our best supplier, I don't care about any lawsuit" or "are you mad? They are our best customer, I don't care about any lawsuit".
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
jholzner
Aug 4, 09:47 AM
Apple's marketing strategy has always been that the PowerBooks (MacBook Pro) have faster processers then any of the iMac offerings. The Conroe and Allendale (Desktop) chips run faster then the Merom (Mobile) chips.
I'm not sure that's true. They had the G5 in the iMac and it was never in the Powerbook. When the Intel iMac was released it was running the same CPUs as the 15" MacBook Pro that was released at the same time. They are very different products so the differentiation is built in.
I'm not sure that's true. They had the G5 in the iMac and it was never in the Powerbook. When the Intel iMac was released it was running the same CPUs as the 15" MacBook Pro that was released at the same time. They are very different products so the differentiation is built in.
markcres
Apr 25, 11:13 AM
Jobs is spinning his BS again as usual. Even when there is overwheming evidence to the contrary...he still insults the intelligence of his customers who he clearly regards as beneath him.
Apple is:
http://www.ukscience.org/BB.jpg
Apple is:
http://www.ukscience.org/BB.jpg
Old Smuggler
Sep 11, 02:31 AM
I hope that the free iPod nano educational deal is still in effect if new iPods are released this week.
seriously doubt it
its just a way to make a little more money off the existing ipods and reduce stock before the changeover
seriously doubt it
its just a way to make a little more money off the existing ipods and reduce stock before the changeover
frankie
Sep 16, 10:10 AM
The 2GHz downgrade is $300 not $75. Where did you get that number? Apple probably pays a lot less for each so this discount seems fair to me. Oops, right, it's -$75 for the smaller HD. Nevertheless -$300 for the slower Xeons is at best HALF of what Apple is saving. For the CPUs I'm quoting from Intel's published wholesale prices, in lots of 1000, which is officially what their major customers pay.
Lots of people assume that Apple is getting a huge discount off that; not a single one of them has professed to inside knowledge of facts. I don't have any connections either, but without direct info on either side I think it's more likely that Apple is paying pretty close to what Intel says they're paying. Even if Apple is somehow getting a 20+% discount, the price difference between 2.0 Xeon and 2.66 is over $300 each, $600 per Mac Pro.
But in any case, I agree it's true that BTO laptops would be harder to manufacture, so it probably isn't worth it for either Apple or the customer.
Lots of people assume that Apple is getting a huge discount off that; not a single one of them has professed to inside knowledge of facts. I don't have any connections either, but without direct info on either side I think it's more likely that Apple is paying pretty close to what Intel says they're paying. Even if Apple is somehow getting a 20+% discount, the price difference between 2.0 Xeon and 2.66 is over $300 each, $600 per Mac Pro.
But in any case, I agree it's true that BTO laptops would be harder to manufacture, so it probably isn't worth it for either Apple or the customer.
twoodcc
Sep 10, 10:58 PM
can't wait!!! not too much longer now!
here's hoping to something new in the living room:cool:
here's hoping to something new in the living room:cool:
rdlink
Apr 20, 06:02 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think Apple needs to concentrate more on improving iOS rather than adding a faster processor. Tbh I'm pretty fed up of my iPhone 4 as the is just looks boringly simple. Not everybody wants the same old os on every device. I think it's the omnia 7 next for me so I can have a change.
I agree. iOS is #1 reason why I haven't bought iPad yet - Android 3.0 looks so good on tablets that I haven't decided yet wheter to buy iPad or Android tablet. I'm not that interested in new iPhone models either, because iOS has basically looked the same since the first iPhone, and it's beginning to look very old and dated. I know it's simple to use, and for many people that's the biggest reason to choose iOS, but personally I like to try new things.
Agreed. I moved from my good ol' 3Gs to a ZTE-Blade a few months ago and have to say that despite the general black/grey colors that android apps seem to be forced to use with the UI, the 'desktop' of the phone is much more elegant and usable than the iPhone's. I'd really like to see Apple open up the API's a little more and maybe even allow us to completely swap out their homescreen for custom app based ones. It works well on the droids.
We all have our opinions, likes and dislikes. Personally, the things that you three cite are reasons why I have tried four different Android devices, and returned/sold every one of them. I, for one hope that Apple continues to march to the beat of their own drummer, and continues to go after the simpler aesthetic. Every Android device I have owned has seemed like a cheap, kludgy "Window-ized" version of the iPhone. More married to specs than to user experience. Don't get me wrong. I can geek it up with the best of 'em. But my first Mac several years ago was nothing short of a watershed moment in my computing life. It made me realize how tired I was getting of having to spend hours and hours customizing my interface just to make it usable, and tweaking my hardware to keep it running optimally (or some semblance thereof).
When I see links such as the one earlier in this forum, showing the hacks one must put in place just to make the battery on a Thunderbolt last more than half a day I shudder to think of all of the years I spent with (virtual) grease under my fingernails, and how nice it is now to just have devices that help me get through the day without having to constantly tinker under the hood.
Not to mention that the "openness" of Android allowing hardware manufacturers and carriers to conspire against subscribers has let the proverbial fox back in the henhouse.
Sure, I'd like to see IOS continue to evolve and wow us with a few revolutionary changes. But, IMO following the Android model is not the way to go. To each his own, I suppose.
I think Apple needs to concentrate more on improving iOS rather than adding a faster processor. Tbh I'm pretty fed up of my iPhone 4 as the is just looks boringly simple. Not everybody wants the same old os on every device. I think it's the omnia 7 next for me so I can have a change.
I agree. iOS is #1 reason why I haven't bought iPad yet - Android 3.0 looks so good on tablets that I haven't decided yet wheter to buy iPad or Android tablet. I'm not that interested in new iPhone models either, because iOS has basically looked the same since the first iPhone, and it's beginning to look very old and dated. I know it's simple to use, and for many people that's the biggest reason to choose iOS, but personally I like to try new things.
Agreed. I moved from my good ol' 3Gs to a ZTE-Blade a few months ago and have to say that despite the general black/grey colors that android apps seem to be forced to use with the UI, the 'desktop' of the phone is much more elegant and usable than the iPhone's. I'd really like to see Apple open up the API's a little more and maybe even allow us to completely swap out their homescreen for custom app based ones. It works well on the droids.
We all have our opinions, likes and dislikes. Personally, the things that you three cite are reasons why I have tried four different Android devices, and returned/sold every one of them. I, for one hope that Apple continues to march to the beat of their own drummer, and continues to go after the simpler aesthetic. Every Android device I have owned has seemed like a cheap, kludgy "Window-ized" version of the iPhone. More married to specs than to user experience. Don't get me wrong. I can geek it up with the best of 'em. But my first Mac several years ago was nothing short of a watershed moment in my computing life. It made me realize how tired I was getting of having to spend hours and hours customizing my interface just to make it usable, and tweaking my hardware to keep it running optimally (or some semblance thereof).
When I see links such as the one earlier in this forum, showing the hacks one must put in place just to make the battery on a Thunderbolt last more than half a day I shudder to think of all of the years I spent with (virtual) grease under my fingernails, and how nice it is now to just have devices that help me get through the day without having to constantly tinker under the hood.
Not to mention that the "openness" of Android allowing hardware manufacturers and carriers to conspire against subscribers has let the proverbial fox back in the henhouse.
Sure, I'd like to see IOS continue to evolve and wow us with a few revolutionary changes. But, IMO following the Android model is not the way to go. To each his own, I suppose.
NebulaClash
Apr 25, 10:21 AM
News Flash:
He's a Liar.
News Flash: You just lied about Steve Jobs.
He's a Liar.
News Flash: You just lied about Steve Jobs.
chrmjenkins
May 4, 02:59 PM
Loras turned as they walked into a room and found a lit torch in a sconce on the wall. He went to reach for it, Wilmer dove into him and they fell, rolling and cursing on the hard stone floor.
"No, you idiot, it could be a trap!" Wilmer's face was sincere.
"Get off me you damned oaf," Loras grunted as he forced Wilmer off. "You really think that if there's going to be a trap, it's going to be a torch?" He stood up, brushed himself off and grabbed the torch. Wilmer flinched.
When nothing happened, Loras widened his eyes and made a dismissive gesture toward Wilmer, who stood his ground and eyed the torch uneasily. The rest of the group followed his lead with the torch and they explored the room.
They searched through a dead-end hallway and found plenty of dust and dilapidated furniture, but there was no treasure.
Dante poked Loras. "Alright, now what smart guy?"
The heroes have one more action this round.
"No, you idiot, it could be a trap!" Wilmer's face was sincere.
"Get off me you damned oaf," Loras grunted as he forced Wilmer off. "You really think that if there's going to be a trap, it's going to be a torch?" He stood up, brushed himself off and grabbed the torch. Wilmer flinched.
When nothing happened, Loras widened his eyes and made a dismissive gesture toward Wilmer, who stood his ground and eyed the torch uneasily. The rest of the group followed his lead with the torch and they explored the room.
They searched through a dead-end hallway and found plenty of dust and dilapidated furniture, but there was no treasure.
Dante poked Loras. "Alright, now what smart guy?"
The heroes have one more action this round.
Steviejobz
Apr 25, 09:41 AM
Thankfully my AT&T coverage is so weak, there is no way Apple can track me.
So there!
So there!
-aggie-
May 3, 05:32 PM
I would rather that you started leading us since you seem to be much more versed in the rules guiding us :).
We�re doomed.:D
We�re doomed.:D
Transporteur
Apr 27, 03:39 PM
..so at the BOTTOM of the case there is cool air (at least cooler then on top, since hot air rises), that means if the PSU is on the bottom it gets cool air and expells hot hair out the back of the case (NOT inside the case, meaning NO hot air coming out of the PSU back will stay in the case and get things even hotter).
Since the Mac Pro has separate compartments for the processors, extension cards and PSU / optical drives, it doesn't matter where the PSU is whatsoever!
Since the Mac Pro has separate compartments for the processors, extension cards and PSU / optical drives, it doesn't matter where the PSU is whatsoever!
cotak
Mar 29, 03:05 PM
ah nothing like starting the day with a bit of ignorance. :cool:
+1 to some reality check.
This thread shows a lot of over simplification of how economies works and what is actually causing job loses.
+1 to some reality check.
This thread shows a lot of over simplification of how economies works and what is actually causing job loses.
megapopular
Mar 28, 12:18 PM
That's just getting complacent in my opinion, people like myself like changing phones yearly, no new iPhone means no return business, I'll try something else instead, bad move if true.
It only says "Fiscal Year" which ends in September, so if this news stoy holds true, you'll still have the option of getting a new iPhone this year!
It only says "Fiscal Year" which ends in September, so if this news stoy holds true, you'll still have the option of getting a new iPhone this year!
jrb363
Mar 28, 10:55 AM
So what are thy going to announce? Is hardware now going to the cloud like software? :rolleyes:
LOL! :D I could totally see Steve doing this. ;)
LOL! :D I could totally see Steve doing this. ;)
darrens
Aug 5, 03:04 AM
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Are you sure that's true for all of them? They haven't owned Logic very long, and some of the others started life outside of Apple. I'm sure they had a few issues there.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
They have the MacOS X GUI code - that doesn't change for Intel - the OS is the same. The core logic endianness doesn't depend on the compiler - the code would be cross-platform and compile on GCC and Visual Studio anyway. Sure they have to deal with a few Codewarrior issues - but they have to do that for the new version anyway. It's not like they'd have to do it twice.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
True - but not all Apple's pro apps had a significant level of new features - they were just an interim release.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
Yes - don't expect us to be as pro-active as we've been in the past. I can remember when Apple went PPC - Adobe had an accelerator out for Photoshop close to the release date of the PPC Macs, and the fully PPC version followed shortly after.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
This is also the sort of app that gets the least advantage from conversion. It's still a fair amount of work to change development environments when there's no real advantage to it. Especially when Intuit is really given token support to the Mac anyway.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
It's hardly the same - you have to boot a second copy of MacOS to run a classic app (which is really slow) and it doesn't integrate seamlessly. You can hardly tell an app is running in Rosetta - there's no visual difference.
Are you sure that's true for all of them? They haven't owned Logic very long, and some of the others started life outside of Apple. I'm sure they had a few issues there.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
They have the MacOS X GUI code - that doesn't change for Intel - the OS is the same. The core logic endianness doesn't depend on the compiler - the code would be cross-platform and compile on GCC and Visual Studio anyway. Sure they have to deal with a few Codewarrior issues - but they have to do that for the new version anyway. It's not like they'd have to do it twice.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
True - but not all Apple's pro apps had a significant level of new features - they were just an interim release.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
Yes - don't expect us to be as pro-active as we've been in the past. I can remember when Apple went PPC - Adobe had an accelerator out for Photoshop close to the release date of the PPC Macs, and the fully PPC version followed shortly after.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
This is also the sort of app that gets the least advantage from conversion. It's still a fair amount of work to change development environments when there's no real advantage to it. Especially when Intuit is really given token support to the Mac anyway.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
It's hardly the same - you have to boot a second copy of MacOS to run a classic app (which is really slow) and it doesn't integrate seamlessly. You can hardly tell an app is running in Rosetta - there's no visual difference.
farmboy
Mar 31, 09:00 AM
I reckon Lion will be the last of cat names used for OS X.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Sabertooth.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Sabertooth.
katebmac
Apr 7, 12:13 PM
Wow, really, who comes to an Apple rumor site and complains about people saying pro Apple things.
You should go to Autoblog next and complain about people getting excited over new cars.
Best Post.
You should go to Autoblog next and complain about people getting excited over new cars.
Best Post.
uv23
Jul 23, 12:02 PM
I too am holding out hope for a 13" MBP. The 13" MB isn't powerful enough graphically and the 15" MBP is too big.
Plutonius
May 3, 10:29 PM
Could I just explore the first room and save a turn for later(I'm not necessarily wanting to do this, just asking if it's possible)?
"Don't Panic" is correct that the best way to search this room is to leave it and return later.
It is not a matter of saving turns for later. Mscriv goes after we make our action.
"Don't Panic" is correct that the best way to search this room is to leave it and return later.
It is not a matter of saving turns for later. Mscriv goes after we make our action.
KnightWRX
Apr 23, 06:39 PM
I don't know where you get your statement than the "iPhone had a higher resolution than macs"
Resolution is a function of both pixel count and screen size. While there were less pixels on the iPhone screen, it had "higher resolution" in the form of higher DPI ;)
However, the person you are replying to is still wrong. The math behind the "retina" display (as explained here (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/)) is that indeed, 300 PPI is the magic number at the viewing distance you usually hold a phone away from your eye in order for pixels to not be distinguishable.
As such, the older 320x480 iPhones did indeed have quite visible pixels (and yes, I can see the pixels on my 3GS just fine).
Resolution is a function of both pixel count and screen size. While there were less pixels on the iPhone screen, it had "higher resolution" in the form of higher DPI ;)
However, the person you are replying to is still wrong. The math behind the "retina" display (as explained here (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/)) is that indeed, 300 PPI is the magic number at the viewing distance you usually hold a phone away from your eye in order for pixels to not be distinguishable.
As such, the older 320x480 iPhones did indeed have quite visible pixels (and yes, I can see the pixels on my 3GS just fine).
No comments:
Post a Comment