darklich
Apr 4, 12:19 PM
Can you people read the story and stop making it out to be a simple robbery?
http://www.10news.com/news/27421748/detail.html
http://www.10news.com/news/27421748/detail.html
ChickenSwartz
Sep 2, 04:49 PM
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
So I have read a lot of these posts, but not all, sorry if this has been dicussed.
Is it weird to have a special event in SF on the day the Paris Expo starts?
Do you think this is pointing towards an iPod/iTunes announcement (movie rentals or whatever)?
If there is no keynote in Paris and a special event on the 12th that has something to do with iPod/Tunes, does this give further evidence that C2C will be in on the 5th?
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
So I have read a lot of these posts, but not all, sorry if this has been dicussed.
Is it weird to have a special event in SF on the day the Paris Expo starts?
Do you think this is pointing towards an iPod/iTunes announcement (movie rentals or whatever)?
If there is no keynote in Paris and a special event on the 12th that has something to do with iPod/Tunes, does this give further evidence that C2C will be in on the 5th?
AidenShaw
Mar 23, 04:48 PM
Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
If you've got a "buzz" - you're probably more than capable of using your phone, but less than capable behind the wheel.
You don't have to be "falling down drunk" to be dangerous (and over the legal limit).
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
If you've got a "buzz" - you're probably more than capable of using your phone, but less than capable behind the wheel.
You don't have to be "falling down drunk" to be dangerous (and over the legal limit).
tsugaru
Mar 22, 03:15 PM
Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
Hey. A boy can dream, right?
Remember when Apple put the latest and greatest GPUs in their computers? /looks back to the blue and white G3 keynote
Hey. A boy can dream, right?
Remember when Apple put the latest and greatest GPUs in their computers? /looks back to the blue and white G3 keynote
dondark
Sep 15, 07:22 PM
$599...I would expect at least 8GB, likely 16GB or a HDD (ala Nokia) to make that worth that price point for me ($1000 AUD roughly). Also video playback.
Did you see any PDA phone couldnt play video? $599 actually is a very low price. Many high-end PDA phones are selling close to $1000 even without a hard drive.
BTW, $1000 aud is $755 USD
Did you see any PDA phone couldnt play video? $599 actually is a very low price. Many high-end PDA phones are selling close to $1000 even without a hard drive.
BTW, $1000 aud is $755 USD
Jcoz
Apr 15, 12:33 PM
Cere, on page one, you DID state that TB would (a) be mac only and (b) die and you've been backtracking terribly ever since.
When you make a statement such as "unfortunately, also bingo" you are giving your full endorsement to that statement and you have accepted that as your own opinion with no ifs, ands or buts. In case you've forgotten, you gave your full endorsement to this quote:
Since then, you've argued that what you really meant was that PC manufacturers wont support it (without proof to back up your claims) and made poor comparisons to Firewire.
Let's compare the two for a second:
FW was pushed by Apple
TB is being pushed by Apple, but more importantly Intel (whose chips power most PCs)
FW had a high per port licensing cost
TB uses a royalty free port and support will be built into future Intel chipsets (making PC implementation virtually inevitable)
FW was slower than USB on paper, but faster in reality
TB blows USB 3.0 out of the water, both on paper and in reality
Why do you keep insisting they are the same and will share the same fate? On top of that, as I mentioned earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12392173&postcount=63) (and no one, including yourself has attempted to refute) TB isn't even a direct competitor with USB, it's more of a complimentary technology. You've done nothing in this thread but blow hot air.
Bingo! :D
When you make a statement such as "unfortunately, also bingo" you are giving your full endorsement to that statement and you have accepted that as your own opinion with no ifs, ands or buts. In case you've forgotten, you gave your full endorsement to this quote:
Since then, you've argued that what you really meant was that PC manufacturers wont support it (without proof to back up your claims) and made poor comparisons to Firewire.
Let's compare the two for a second:
FW was pushed by Apple
TB is being pushed by Apple, but more importantly Intel (whose chips power most PCs)
FW had a high per port licensing cost
TB uses a royalty free port and support will be built into future Intel chipsets (making PC implementation virtually inevitable)
FW was slower than USB on paper, but faster in reality
TB blows USB 3.0 out of the water, both on paper and in reality
Why do you keep insisting they are the same and will share the same fate? On top of that, as I mentioned earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12392173&postcount=63) (and no one, including yourself has attempted to refute) TB isn't even a direct competitor with USB, it's more of a complimentary technology. You've done nothing in this thread but blow hot air.
Bingo! :D
Manic Mouse
Sep 10, 05:47 AM
The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.
As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.
I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.
As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.
As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.
I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.
As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.
kozmic stu
Aug 24, 02:10 AM
At least this gets it all out of the way, hey.
Stu
____________________________________
Phantom Rouge (http://phantom-rouge.co.uk) - The Artwork of Eleanor Hirst
Stu
____________________________________
Phantom Rouge (http://phantom-rouge.co.uk) - The Artwork of Eleanor Hirst
Eidorian
Jul 14, 11:10 AM
I thought the Yonah was Socket 775. It's not? :confused:No, Yonah is a variant of Socket 479. The Pentium-M used it too. Yonah has the same number of pins but there placement is slightly different.
If I bought one of these, could I put it in my Intel iMac and have it work?No, the Sockets aren't compatible.
If I bought one of these, could I put it in my Intel iMac and have it work?No, the Sockets aren't compatible.
KnightWRX
Apr 30, 05:00 PM
I agree 100% with the sentiment of what you're saying -- I think the matte vs. gloss thing is WAAAAY overblown, but just for argument's sake, remember that CRT have a curved front screen, not a flat sheet of glass. That's going to diffuse a lot of external light just by the nature of the design.
Sure, maybe, but I remember not being able to even see what was on glass tube CRT monitor when the shades were open. Heck, TVs in summer ? :eek: While there may be virtues to the matte screens, I doubt it's as big an issue as some people make it out to be.
Sure, maybe, but I remember not being able to even see what was on glass tube CRT monitor when the shades were open. Heck, TVs in summer ? :eek: While there may be virtues to the matte screens, I doubt it's as big an issue as some people make it out to be.
EricNau
Sep 13, 09:16 PM
I am not really crazy about this design. Having to slide the click-wheel down every time I need to use my phone doesn't sound like fun (plus, what would this thing look like open? ...what I'm picturing is ugly).
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 23, 10:24 PM
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
Apple makes money off of iTunes Music Store - they won't tell us how much, but it is a money maker (all be it insignificant compared to the iPod)
Apple makes money off of iTunes Music Store - they won't tell us how much, but it is a money maker (all be it insignificant compared to the iPod)
Tommyg117
Sep 15, 06:07 PM
ok, but what cell phone provider are they going to use? Cingular? Verizon? I have verizon and really want them to have it.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 07:59 PM
um.. ok im not sure that is really a response. that just tells me that you can add a phone to your plan for $10.
Hmmm, link must've been wrong. But Sprint has free incoming plans. They are:
$49.99/month 300 outgoing add'l min $.45 unlimited night & weekend
$59.99/month 500 outgoing " " " " " " "
$79.99/month 800 outgoing " " " " " " "
$99.99/month 1000 outgoing " " " " " " "
Hmmm, link must've been wrong. But Sprint has free incoming plans. They are:
$49.99/month 300 outgoing add'l min $.45 unlimited night & weekend
$59.99/month 500 outgoing " " " " " " "
$79.99/month 800 outgoing " " " " " " "
$99.99/month 1000 outgoing " " " " " " "
macintel4me
Sep 4, 09:51 PM
who knows they might release a mini mac style media centre with OSX that will be used to download the movies and allow you to burn it straight to DVD/Blueray lol :cool:
Okay, a FrontRow/AirPort Express/iTunes-downloadable Media Center device is SWEET!! I bet that is EXACTLY what we see Apple delivering!!
Okay, a FrontRow/AirPort Express/iTunes-downloadable Media Center device is SWEET!! I bet that is EXACTLY what we see Apple delivering!!
whooleytoo
Sep 14, 06:22 AM
It seems very odd that Apple would adopt the iPod nano look 'n' feel on the iPhone, when they've just dropped it on the nano itself. On the other hand, it's possible the nano's look was changed to differentiate it from the upcoming iPhone - though I don't buy it.
The scroll wheel looks very low on the front of the device, meaning it's hard to use it with your thumb without the phone toppling out of your hand (as with many current phones).
Whatever about the design, if Apple could make any attractive phone, which is stable(!!), with a snappy UI (!!!), and with tight integration with the Mac (contacts, calendars/schedulers, perhaps even tighter integration with Address Book), I'd snap it up.
The scroll wheel looks very low on the front of the device, meaning it's hard to use it with your thumb without the phone toppling out of your hand (as with many current phones).
Whatever about the design, if Apple could make any attractive phone, which is stable(!!), with a snappy UI (!!!), and with tight integration with the Mac (contacts, calendars/schedulers, perhaps even tighter integration with Address Book), I'd snap it up.
caspersoong
Apr 22, 05:06 AM
Useless to me if it is just for iTunes purchases. Please focus on more important things, Apple.
bwillwall
Mar 23, 04:48 PM
:apple:
Wedding Hairstyles For Long
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 23, 10:24 PM
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
Apple makes money off of iTunes Music Store - they won't tell us how much, but it is a money maker (all be it insignificant compared to the iPod)
Apple makes money off of iTunes Music Store - they won't tell us how much, but it is a money maker (all be it insignificant compared to the iPod)
manosaurus
Oct 12, 12:49 PM
They might as well add a Core 2 Duo Mac Book Pro too.
Nah... Core 2 Duo eMac tomorrow... not the MBP...
Nah... Core 2 Duo eMac tomorrow... not the MBP...
pithy
Apr 22, 10:29 AM
I'm amazed that no-one is seeing the very dangerous path we could be heading down here. Will people only see it when it's too late?
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
You're being alarmist. Besides what does it matter to you if you "own" a copy of a song, just as long as the overall cost of use is the same or less? Competition will always moderate costs. I suggest you get more sleep and relax.
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
You're being alarmist. Besides what does it matter to you if you "own" a copy of a song, just as long as the overall cost of use is the same or less? Competition will always moderate costs. I suggest you get more sleep and relax.
nummy1
Oct 4, 11:04 PM
What is the Resolution of these movie files?... and what kind of sound is outputted?... If i spend as much money as I would on a DVD i want the same quality...
infidel69
Mar 29, 11:27 AM
Microsoft should work on perfecting windows before starting a mobile OS
Windows 7 kicks ass, it's every bit as good as Snow Leopard if not better.
Windows 7 kicks ass, it's every bit as good as Snow Leopard if not better.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 15, 11:27 AM
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports.
With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold.
It's barely entered the market - on the mac. I'm rocking 6 usb 3 ports over here.
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports with no adapters.
It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
Compared to devices which nobody has which are not compatible with anything else? Compared to a next gen connector that is on one line of apple only products?
Thunderbolt is sweet, but nobody is using it yet and it is a unique connector. I smell another expensive adapter market coming...
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money
It's not expensive and whose time is it wasting? I mean other than people foaming at the mouth on forums.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports.
With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold.
It's barely entered the market - on the mac. I'm rocking 6 usb 3 ports over here.
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports with no adapters.
It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
Compared to devices which nobody has which are not compatible with anything else? Compared to a next gen connector that is on one line of apple only products?
Thunderbolt is sweet, but nobody is using it yet and it is a unique connector. I smell another expensive adapter market coming...
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money
It's not expensive and whose time is it wasting? I mean other than people foaming at the mouth on forums.
No comments:
Post a Comment