Multimedia
Jul 17, 04:33 PM
I don't want to buy and sell for a month use.
If the chip is comeing out on staurday (23rd) doesnt that mean that they MBPs will chip the 7th? seeing as how the chip would already be out...Not sure if introduction will mean shipping in quantity by then. Think Apple may need time to build invintory 'til September so they can fill orders upon announcement. I would love to see it happen for everyone August 7th. I just don't think it's wise to get your hopes up for that to be the day.
Seems like the Mac Pro and Leopard will be more than enough for August 7th. September 12th seems like a more logical time to spotlight Merom in MacBook Pros in Paris like they did with the 15" Aluminum 1.25GHz PowerBook G4 three years ago. That's when USB 2 and FW 800 ports were added to the line as well. At the time it was a very big power shift-up among the mobile Macs. :)
I have that three year old model PB so I am like you waiting for a 2.33 GHz Merom MacBook Pro to ship. I'm OK with my old mobile though. 'Cause I'm hooked on my Quad at home all the time now. ;)
If the chip is comeing out on staurday (23rd) doesnt that mean that they MBPs will chip the 7th? seeing as how the chip would already be out...Not sure if introduction will mean shipping in quantity by then. Think Apple may need time to build invintory 'til September so they can fill orders upon announcement. I would love to see it happen for everyone August 7th. I just don't think it's wise to get your hopes up for that to be the day.
Seems like the Mac Pro and Leopard will be more than enough for August 7th. September 12th seems like a more logical time to spotlight Merom in MacBook Pros in Paris like they did with the 15" Aluminum 1.25GHz PowerBook G4 three years ago. That's when USB 2 and FW 800 ports were added to the line as well. At the time it was a very big power shift-up among the mobile Macs. :)
I have that three year old model PB so I am like you waiting for a 2.33 GHz Merom MacBook Pro to ship. I'm OK with my old mobile though. 'Cause I'm hooked on my Quad at home all the time now. ;)
DavidLeblond
Apr 20, 11:34 AM
Has to have some back and forth that could be tracked.
GPS devices don't transmit. I think they'd have a much shorter of a battery life if they were sending signals to the satellite.
GPS devices don't transmit. I think they'd have a much shorter of a battery life if they were sending signals to the satellite.
Coolerking
Sep 8, 08:35 AM
Because I don't know much about computers- can Leopard run on just Core Duo processors or does it need to be Core 2 Duo?
ChazUK
Mar 29, 01:13 PM
what the heck LOL, this is a joke right? I have NEVER seen a single new windows phone being used in public nor do I see that many Android devices in the UK. mostly I see
1. BlackBerries
2. iPhones
never seen a new windows phone LOL, most people who are happy with iPhones etc, will stick with them and won't bother going for anything else.
Looking at the email notification I got of your original list before your edit:
1. BlackBerries
2. iPhones
3. HTC'S <--- Those would be your Android/WP7 phones. ;)
4. Nokia N-Series
1. BlackBerries
2. iPhones
never seen a new windows phone LOL, most people who are happy with iPhones etc, will stick with them and won't bother going for anything else.
Looking at the email notification I got of your original list before your edit:
1. BlackBerries
2. iPhones
3. HTC'S <--- Those would be your Android/WP7 phones. ;)
4. Nokia N-Series
Minimum91
Apr 11, 04:31 AM
Is anyone here educated enough to explain to me how to compile and run this thing?
I can't find a way to install avahi. Tried installing it via fink - no luck.
MacPorts requires xcode, but I don't really want to install xcode. takes up a lot of space.
Even though I know some things I'd still prefer if someone would make a step-by-step how-to for me.
Thank you in advance.
I can't find a way to install avahi. Tried installing it via fink - no luck.
MacPorts requires xcode, but I don't really want to install xcode. takes up a lot of space.
Even though I know some things I'd still prefer if someone would make a step-by-step how-to for me.
Thank you in advance.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:21 AM
You must be a barrel of laughs on a shopping trip:
You didn't answer the question.
You didn't answer the question.
Edot
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
I'm not sure why there is so much argument about the term "app". The trademark is for "App Store" not for "app". It would be like arguing that "Burger King" is not a valid trademark because "burger" is a generic term.
WillEH
Apr 19, 05:19 PM
What do Apple want out of this? more money?
mdntcallr
Sep 10, 09:37 AM
I'd like to see merom in MBP
I'd really like to see the conroe, and conroe replacement in a mid sized tower/media center.
something bigger and better than the mac mini, more powerful than the imac. no integrated display. good upgradability and of course.... priced between the imac and tower. accounting for NO display included, ie about same price as imac. or even a little less.
I'd really like to see the conroe, and conroe replacement in a mid sized tower/media center.
something bigger and better than the mac mini, more powerful than the imac. no integrated display. good upgradability and of course.... priced between the imac and tower. accounting for NO display included, ie about same price as imac. or even a little less.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 01:09 PM
There are software solutions that promise a different future than what you envision. DXO Optics made an announcement recently about using software to drastically correct cell phone camera pictures. Shouldn't be long...
the G5 PowerBook shouldnt be that long either. :rolleyes:
I will trust it when I see it. Heck, why do professional photographers spend much more on the optics, than on the house? Picture quality is all in the optics.
the G5 PowerBook shouldnt be that long either. :rolleyes:
I will trust it when I see it. Heck, why do professional photographers spend much more on the optics, than on the house? Picture quality is all in the optics.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
TC400
Apr 30, 02:11 PM
Isn't this iMac design from fall of 2009? That's less than two years.
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
AidenShaw
Mar 22, 02:38 PM
I want to know where to get a list of products that hook onto Thunderbolt.
Rocketman
From terminal, to see all the shipping Thunderbolt products use the command
cat /dev/null
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
Coming summer 2011 - at least 3 months away.
Rocketman
From terminal, to see all the shipping Thunderbolt products use the command
cat /dev/null
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
Coming summer 2011 - at least 3 months away.
Eraserhead
Aug 23, 05:10 PM
It seems advantageous for both parties, Creative get the opportunity to make some money for a change too ;)
AidenShaw
Mar 24, 11:16 PM
Do you guys see Thunderbolt replacing maybe the firewire ports one day?
No - ThunderPort will be too expensive. And USB 3.0 will destroy the last bits of firewire that USB 2.0 didn't kill.
My guess is that the most popular ThunderPort peripheral will be a small hub with four port-multiplier capable eSATA ports and six USB 3.0 ports.
At the high end, there will be ThunderPort RAID devices and professional A/D gear - but ThunderPort disks will be too expensive for the common folks.
No - ThunderPort will be too expensive. And USB 3.0 will destroy the last bits of firewire that USB 2.0 didn't kill.
My guess is that the most popular ThunderPort peripheral will be a small hub with four port-multiplier capable eSATA ports and six USB 3.0 ports.
At the high end, there will be ThunderPort RAID devices and professional A/D gear - but ThunderPort disks will be too expensive for the common folks.
Tymmz
Sep 1, 11:45 AM
hopefully it's going to look like this:
56364
56364
swingerofbirch
Sep 1, 01:17 AM
Well for the sake of pontificating.....
Taking pictures and movies wtih cell phones is very big right now.
But as Steve Jobs would say "it's not a great experience."
He'll show a really crappy movie made on a cell phone.
He'll talk about how the world is evolving, more bandwidth has led to sites like Youtube.
Consumers are getting way more intelligent with movies, and we pioneered desktop movies with iMovie and then added HD functionality with iMovie HD.
But we want to take this one step further.
We want to go from this (shows youtube home movie) to a really great cinematic experience.
Today Apple introduces the world's least expensive High Definition video camera. There are no tapes. It's as easy as iPod.
You just shoot in 1080p, hook it up to your supercharged Intel Mac, edit in iMovie HD, and BOOM.
Look at this. It's gorgeous. Isn't this amazing?
So we're going from this (youtube video) to this. BOOM. Wow.
ROARS OF APPLAUSE AND THUNDER.
And we're introducing the all new QuickTake (or iCam whatever) for just $599.
I dunno!
Just an idea of why Apple would buy Canon (which I don't think they will). lol....
Taking pictures and movies wtih cell phones is very big right now.
But as Steve Jobs would say "it's not a great experience."
He'll show a really crappy movie made on a cell phone.
He'll talk about how the world is evolving, more bandwidth has led to sites like Youtube.
Consumers are getting way more intelligent with movies, and we pioneered desktop movies with iMovie and then added HD functionality with iMovie HD.
But we want to take this one step further.
We want to go from this (shows youtube home movie) to a really great cinematic experience.
Today Apple introduces the world's least expensive High Definition video camera. There are no tapes. It's as easy as iPod.
You just shoot in 1080p, hook it up to your supercharged Intel Mac, edit in iMovie HD, and BOOM.
Look at this. It's gorgeous. Isn't this amazing?
So we're going from this (youtube video) to this. BOOM. Wow.
ROARS OF APPLAUSE AND THUNDER.
And we're introducing the all new QuickTake (or iCam whatever) for just $599.
I dunno!
Just an idea of why Apple would buy Canon (which I don't think they will). lol....
jellomizer
Sep 14, 05:48 AM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
karsten
Apr 20, 09:57 AM
i'm tired of companies taking our privacy so lightly. makes a consumer feel like a dumb piece of meat. i hope someone files a lawsuit over this. any sneaky tactics like this should be outright banned by the government. maybe once we get some politicians of a younger generation in there who are more aware of these issues they will actually do something to protect the consumer from greedy and arrogant corporations. i hope but i'm not sure i will ever see this dream realized the way government currently lets companies run rampant.
Kwill
Mar 30, 12:01 PM
Here's a novel thought. Why doesn't Microsoft create something, you know, novel?
Porchland
Sep 19, 05:07 PM
Looking at some financials, I think Disney sells on the order of 100M DVD units per quarter, which comes out to about 7-10M units per week? 125k units through the online channel in one week isn't so bad. :) If they hit their $50M revenue target, that means they will see sales on the order of 1% of total home video sales? That's a fair start.
And undoubtedly a better margin. I have not seen any concrete numbers, but I had read an article months ago speculating that a studio's margin on digitally distributed movies would be about twice the margin it receives on DVDs.
Plus, for catalog sales, the is almost NO marginal cost; the films just sit on a server until someone buys them.
And undoubtedly a better margin. I have not seen any concrete numbers, but I had read an article months ago speculating that a studio's margin on digitally distributed movies would be about twice the margin it receives on DVDs.
Plus, for catalog sales, the is almost NO marginal cost; the films just sit on a server until someone buys them.
vansouza
Sep 9, 05:41 PM
world peace... cool... an iMac on every desk and an iPhone in every pocket.:D
flopticalcube
Sep 9, 12:25 PM
Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. OS X automatically delegates work to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!
HecubusPro
Sep 5, 04:40 PM
Indeed it is. Microsoft is simply DEAD after 12th of September...Apple is finally gonna reach the status of market leader in media and computers...this is gonna be mindblowing.
How long after September 12th? Certainly not anytime in the forseeable future. I wouldn't even dare to speculate on such a reversal of fortune for a company like Microsoft.
Personally, I wouldn't want Apple to be that big. It's easier to lose sight of quality when your userbase is pretty much the entire world. That's not to say Apple wouldn't do it better than Microsoft, but since Apple's install base has grown, so has the problems with their products. Of course, that's just simple numbers (of which I really suck :) .) Perhaps the percentage has always been the same, but on the surface, it doesn't seem like that is the case. There are a lot of people complaining about random shut-downs on their macbooks.
How long after September 12th? Certainly not anytime in the forseeable future. I wouldn't even dare to speculate on such a reversal of fortune for a company like Microsoft.
Personally, I wouldn't want Apple to be that big. It's easier to lose sight of quality when your userbase is pretty much the entire world. That's not to say Apple wouldn't do it better than Microsoft, but since Apple's install base has grown, so has the problems with their products. Of course, that's just simple numbers (of which I really suck :) .) Perhaps the percentage has always been the same, but on the surface, it doesn't seem like that is the case. There are a lot of people complaining about random shut-downs on their macbooks.
No comments:
Post a Comment