holycat
Sep 10, 03:20 PM
Yep, if you want an iMac, then buy it NOW. The laptops will soon see upgrades, but the rest of the product line is up-to-date.
And... unless you are doing hard-core gaming or intensive graphics or scientific work, a CPU upgrade is not likely to be noticed in your real-world computing.
ThaNKS!!i
prom hair updos 2011.
prom hair updos 2011. prom
prom hair 2011 updos. prom
curly updo prom hairstyle
prom updos 2011 for long hair.
popular prom hair styles.
2011 prom updos for long hair.
prom hair updos 2011. hair
prom updo hairstyle.
prom hair updos 2011. curly
2011 Updo Prom Hairstyles.
PROM UPDOS 2011 FOR SHORT HAIR
prom hair updos 2011. hair
long hair updos 2011. prom
prom hair updos for short hair
wedding updo hair styles 2011
prom hair 2011 curly updos.
prom updos 2011 curly. curly
And... unless you are doing hard-core gaming or intensive graphics or scientific work, a CPU upgrade is not likely to be noticed in your real-world computing.
ThaNKS!!i
vincenz
Apr 30, 02:33 PM
If I could, I would get rid of my mbp+acd for an iMac. Don't know why. Maybe I'm just restless.
TrollToddington
Apr 23, 04:20 AM
Because people are stupid, that's why.
No one realistically games on a Macbook Air. And the SNB IGP is actually very capable. Their GMA offerings have generally always been crap but the 3000 is quite the opposite.
Playing Wow on 11" must be quite an experience. One must be quite an addict in order to want to play Wow on an MBA while on the go, I did hear that game was highly addicting. So, from a point of view, I understand the position of the people you call "stupid". Computer game addiction is a phenomena that is hard to deal with, I used to be a game addict but nowadays no game can attract my concentration for more than a day or a week. Civ4 and Simcity 4 Rush hour are exceptions but they have low requirements anyway so that I will be able to play them "while on the go" on the 11". Otherwise, I am quite content with the cheap stuff found on the App Store.
No one realistically games on a Macbook Air. And the SNB IGP is actually very capable. Their GMA offerings have generally always been crap but the 3000 is quite the opposite.
Playing Wow on 11" must be quite an experience. One must be quite an addict in order to want to play Wow on an MBA while on the go, I did hear that game was highly addicting. So, from a point of view, I understand the position of the people you call "stupid". Computer game addiction is a phenomena that is hard to deal with, I used to be a game addict but nowadays no game can attract my concentration for more than a day or a week. Civ4 and Simcity 4 Rush hour are exceptions but they have low requirements anyway so that I will be able to play them "while on the go" on the 11". Otherwise, I am quite content with the cheap stuff found on the App Store.
FleurDuMal
Sep 14, 08:56 AM
OH NO, don't say that. Now we'll be inundated with 600 posts of "I want a mid tower Mac, headless, for $1200.00"
Whoops. Although I'd love to see a mid-tower Mac, I don't think it'll happen. Ever.
Perhaps we'll see a genuine Photoshop competitor? A proper editing suite of some sort (either that, or real editing functions integrated into Aperture)?
OK, now I'm just clutching at straws :o .
Whoops. Although I'd love to see a mid-tower Mac, I don't think it'll happen. Ever.
Perhaps we'll see a genuine Photoshop competitor? A proper editing suite of some sort (either that, or real editing functions integrated into Aperture)?
OK, now I'm just clutching at straws :o .
Counterfit
Apr 25, 03:10 AM
Because I actually care about my grandparents. They have done something genuine for me, they have cared for me, they have loved me, etc. Some random idiot woman in a minivan is just another person, why should I care about her? Because she is a human? I think not. I have no personal connection to that woman, I cannot feasibly or easily use her to advance myself, so why should I care what happens to her today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now? Logically, I shouldn't; emotionally and morally I should because she is another person, I think that is nonsensical.
-Don
I await the day that the person you run off the road is the one who can destroy your career and/or life.
-Don
I await the day that the person you run off the road is the one who can destroy your career and/or life.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 01:22 PM
Because part of releasing a new, backwards approaching, IGP in the 13" MBP required saving face for both its MacBook "PRO" name and Intel's IGP capabilities itself.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
Hum... that's the point, you wouldn't even notice that in regular desktop usage, only in gaming and then only if you usually game on the internal display.
The framebuffer resolutions required for desktop usage have been pushed by GPUs much less than the SB graphics. Again, my Matrox G200 could power a 1600x1200 monitor with ease with about 1% of the processing power of a 9400M, much less that of the 320M or the Intel 3000HD.
These GPUs can power 30" monitors at 2560x1600 and their internal display on the laptops without breaking a sweat, at the same time. You wouldn't notice a degradation in performance. I'm writing this right now with my MBA connected to a 2048x1156 monitor and it's also powering its own 1440x900 display where iTunes is displayed. I'm not seeing this "degradation" you speak of.
This, again, only applies to 3D gaming. We don't know why the MBP didn't get the resolution upgrade and I can garantee you it has nothing to do with the GPU.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
Hum... that's the point, you wouldn't even notice that in regular desktop usage, only in gaming and then only if you usually game on the internal display.
The framebuffer resolutions required for desktop usage have been pushed by GPUs much less than the SB graphics. Again, my Matrox G200 could power a 1600x1200 monitor with ease with about 1% of the processing power of a 9400M, much less that of the 320M or the Intel 3000HD.
These GPUs can power 30" monitors at 2560x1600 and their internal display on the laptops without breaking a sweat, at the same time. You wouldn't notice a degradation in performance. I'm writing this right now with my MBA connected to a 2048x1156 monitor and it's also powering its own 1440x900 display where iTunes is displayed. I'm not seeing this "degradation" you speak of.
This, again, only applies to 3D gaming. We don't know why the MBP didn't get the resolution upgrade and I can garantee you it has nothing to do with the GPU.
bdkennedy1
Mar 30, 11:59 AM
Microsoft is turning desperate a lot slower than I thought they would.
dondark
Sep 14, 01:49 AM
I hope iPhone will have a good sync with the Mac. If i am only looking for a pretty cell phone, there are a lot in the japanese market.
QCassidy352
Sep 4, 08:22 PM
an airport express that can stream video... could I be any less underwhelmed? :rolleyes:
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 09:35 PM
yeah... and what about the past years when they have run the promotion and not added newly released product to the rebate? thats what i was referring to.
And this is why I say it can go either way. The release of the C2D mac systems are not dependent upon the rebate IMO. It might happen or it might not. My guess is that Apple is not releasing their new computers based upon when the rebate ends. They'll simply release them, and if they happen to fall within the rebate period, that's not necessarily by design. But it is our good fortune. :)
And this is why I say it can go either way. The release of the C2D mac systems are not dependent upon the rebate IMO. It might happen or it might not. My guess is that Apple is not releasing their new computers based upon when the rebate ends. They'll simply release them, and if they happen to fall within the rebate period, that's not necessarily by design. But it is our good fortune. :)
richard4339
Sep 26, 11:26 AM
I hate to say this folks, but even an iPhone wouldn't be worth having to deal with Cingular's godawful service. Reception is poor in areas where it's supposed to be good and even when you have good reception, you get dropped calls due to network error/rejected/dropped. I've had Cingular for a while now, and I am preparing to drop it with eagerness, even if that means a $200 contract termination fee. I want to slug that twat who says Cingular has the least dropped calls, because it's a ********* LIE.
Verizon isn't much better. I'm wanting to switch to Sprint; their plans make the most sense. Unfortunately, their coverage areas are small.
Verizon isn't much better. I'm wanting to switch to Sprint; their plans make the most sense. Unfortunately, their coverage areas are small.
JAT
Apr 29, 03:56 PM
that was in 2005 when it first came out. by now they are on a revision that costs a lot less to make and they have sold a lot of games and XBL subs to make up for it. back when the 360 first came out it had an attach rate of 8 games, higher than Sony. figure at $10 licensing per game that's $80 per console on average plus XBL. so i don't know if the isuppli numbers are accurate.
a lot of companies in the console market have been doing it like this for years. take a loss the first year or two, sell break even or small profit later in the cycle and make it up on the games. except for nintendo which is doing the opposite. make money early in the cycle and start losing money at the end of the cycle.
2011 the division will probably turn a profit of $3 to $4 billion or so due to kinect. 2010 was also profitable. if the Nokia partnership works out 2012 will be even better.
You do understand that 2008 minus 2001 plus development time is more than 1 or 2, right? That's 7, maybe 9 years of losses.
My original comment was that this is a poor way to do it, from a finance perspective. There was no guarantee, and if Sony and M$ didn't have profit elsewhere, these wouldn't even exist. Nintendo made money on the Wii almost immediately, as you've claimed M$ did. It sounds like you are talking about Nintendo.
a lot of companies in the console market have been doing it like this for years. take a loss the first year or two, sell break even or small profit later in the cycle and make it up on the games. except for nintendo which is doing the opposite. make money early in the cycle and start losing money at the end of the cycle.
2011 the division will probably turn a profit of $3 to $4 billion or so due to kinect. 2010 was also profitable. if the Nokia partnership works out 2012 will be even better.
You do understand that 2008 minus 2001 plus development time is more than 1 or 2, right? That's 7, maybe 9 years of losses.
My original comment was that this is a poor way to do it, from a finance perspective. There was no guarantee, and if Sony and M$ didn't have profit elsewhere, these wouldn't even exist. Nintendo made money on the Wii almost immediately, as you've claimed M$ did. It sounds like you are talking about Nintendo.
GregA
Sep 15, 10:44 PM
'07? They've been planning for for years is seems like and '07 is the best they can do? It seems that Apple has a choice.
1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level
I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.
The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)
1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level
I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.
The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)
cozmot
Mar 21, 02:16 PM
The point is that MisterMe said nothing that your response would have fit. You can infer all you want, but it's very clear that MisterMe was talking about the market share myth, and was not inferring that Macs are immune to malware.
No, I just took the first example you posted and saw that it didn't prove your point at all.
That's quite true.
Using your STD example, I have zero need for protection if my wife and I are exclusive with each other, as we are. Likewise, protection isn't currently necessary for a Mac if the user exercises reasonable care and caution. If you want to run AV on your Mac, it's perfectly within your right. It's just not needed for protection.
You alone have the power to stop reading or posting in this thread.
It's not turning a mountain into a mole hill to stand by accurate, factual statements when they're challenged. It's not a "status-quo"; it's the current reality in the Mac computing world. No one is saying that it couldn't change in the future. It just hasn't yet.
You have no idea what attitude "most Mac users" have, unless you've interviewed the many millions of them. If I exercise the reasonable care that I've already described, it can't happen to me, in the current computing environment. If that situation ever changes, such as the introduction of a true Mac virus into the wild, any antivirus app I may have installed today will provide no protection from that event.
It's called "profit motive", which any successful company has.
Again, a personal opinion. Like millions of others, I find their hardware options perfectly acceptable and I don't have a problem with their pricing. If that weren't true, I and millions of others simply wouldn't buy from them.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be careful. In fact, that's exactly what we've been saying: if you're careful, you don't need antivirus software to protect your Mac from malware.
I think GGJstudios answered MagnusVonMagnum's contentions, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments perfectly. And Magnus, I hope that you're truly sick of this thread, because I am too with your belaboring the same points, putting words in peoples' mouths and contributing nothing to this thread. Really, enough already! Quit reading and posting here, and get well soon.
No, I just took the first example you posted and saw that it didn't prove your point at all.
That's quite true.
Using your STD example, I have zero need for protection if my wife and I are exclusive with each other, as we are. Likewise, protection isn't currently necessary for a Mac if the user exercises reasonable care and caution. If you want to run AV on your Mac, it's perfectly within your right. It's just not needed for protection.
You alone have the power to stop reading or posting in this thread.
It's not turning a mountain into a mole hill to stand by accurate, factual statements when they're challenged. It's not a "status-quo"; it's the current reality in the Mac computing world. No one is saying that it couldn't change in the future. It just hasn't yet.
You have no idea what attitude "most Mac users" have, unless you've interviewed the many millions of them. If I exercise the reasonable care that I've already described, it can't happen to me, in the current computing environment. If that situation ever changes, such as the introduction of a true Mac virus into the wild, any antivirus app I may have installed today will provide no protection from that event.
It's called "profit motive", which any successful company has.
Again, a personal opinion. Like millions of others, I find their hardware options perfectly acceptable and I don't have a problem with their pricing. If that weren't true, I and millions of others simply wouldn't buy from them.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be careful. In fact, that's exactly what we've been saying: if you're careful, you don't need antivirus software to protect your Mac from malware.
I think GGJstudios answered MagnusVonMagnum's contentions, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments perfectly. And Magnus, I hope that you're truly sick of this thread, because I am too with your belaboring the same points, putting words in peoples' mouths and contributing nothing to this thread. Really, enough already! Quit reading and posting here, and get well soon.
logandzwon
Mar 29, 12:01 PM
I LOLed when I saw this, but after reading it, I see what they are doing. They obviously strongly believe in Nokia's world-wide relevance. They think pretty much every Symbian user will switch over to winmo7.
Sodner
Mar 22, 02:12 PM
Pity they didn't slim down the iMac by choppin' the chin (assuming this rumor is true). Can't wait to see what they release. The old "smaller iMac" rumor priced for the "mass market" kept me interested in the next iMac update--hope to see something trimmed for the "mass market".
Figured iMacs would update in April.
Like the chin the way it is but I am hoping for the "mass market price point" iMac. If not, the 21" goes to the family room and I get a 27". :)
Figured iMacs would update in April.
Like the chin the way it is but I am hoping for the "mass market price point" iMac. If not, the 21" goes to the family room and I get a 27". :)
Al Coholic
Apr 25, 06:55 PM
Well crap.
I suppose this new design will be shaped like an onion dicer a.k.a. "Air" style. I hate the "wedgie" look. If so, looks like the OD will go as well.
Double crap.
But I don't like change in general. (They changed the label on my bourbon bottle 10 years ago and it hasn't tasted the same since :()
I suppose this new design will be shaped like an onion dicer a.k.a. "Air" style. I hate the "wedgie" look. If so, looks like the OD will go as well.
Double crap.
But I don't like change in general. (They changed the label on my bourbon bottle 10 years ago and it hasn't tasted the same since :()
Maccus Aurelius
Oct 27, 08:49 PM
Just for the record, I hate greencepeace and everything they stand for.
Actually, it's not what they stand for that's the problem. the problem is their methods. They grandstand and make big a big stink, which completely destroys their credibility. im all for better components, but id never associate myself with those fruits.
Actually, it's not what they stand for that's the problem. the problem is their methods. They grandstand and make big a big stink, which completely destroys their credibility. im all for better components, but id never associate myself with those fruits.
4God
Aug 28, 02:41 PM
Unfortunately, cats are known liars.
DOH!!!! 55999
DOH!!!! 55999
woodman
Sep 14, 01:23 AM
Instead of having a slide-down clickwheel that reveals buttons, why not just have the clickwheel behave like those old roatary phones. You can just scroll around a circle of numbers on the screen and click to select it. That'd be cleaner. Of course text messages are a different thing :)
While I'm here, I'd just like to reiterate my belief that Apple will have it's own network and not offer its phone to other carriers (they don't want it anyway). They will lease lines like Boost or ESPN does.
Although I've been shot down on this before, I still believe it and I've even heard media mention the same thing, so I'd be willing to bet. (In fact my Jan-07 call options are a bet!).
While I'm here, I'd just like to reiterate my belief that Apple will have it's own network and not offer its phone to other carriers (they don't want it anyway). They will lease lines like Boost or ESPN does.
Although I've been shot down on this before, I still believe it and I've even heard media mention the same thing, so I'd be willing to bet. (In fact my Jan-07 call options are a bet!).
RollTide
May 3, 05:14 PM
I can't believe 7200 rpm HD is standard. WOW
jaydub
Aug 28, 10:31 PM
wake up then, because it won't happen for awhile.
The current enclosure is very nice, so why change it?
Because people are so scared of immediate obsolescence that they'd rather hope for a new enclosure than enjoy what is currently out. It gets really old.
The current enclosure is very nice, so why change it?
Because people are so scared of immediate obsolescence that they'd rather hope for a new enclosure than enjoy what is currently out. It gets really old.
rtharper
Sep 14, 10:08 AM
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
The big distinction I would draw is that those are consumer products, not professional-grade hardware. Apple could co-brand but what would everyone's question be? "So, who actually made it?"
The big distinction I would draw is that those are consumer products, not professional-grade hardware. Apple could co-brand but what would everyone's question be? "So, who actually made it?"
dolph0291
Mar 30, 01:18 PM
They are bothered because they want to be able to describe their app store. They want to be able to say:
"We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can by apps. Think of it as a grocery store for apps. You know, an app store."
In the Windows world, it would be a Program Store. Look at any Windows computer and there's nothing called an application or an app. MS claims to have, like 95% of the desktop market. How would the gazillion Windows users out there even know what an "app" was? They've had zero exposure to it, it's a totally foreign term. Wait a minute, it's an Apple term that is coming into common usage and now MS might have to change their language to get rid of the goofy term "program", conceding defeat, so its usage must be stopped or curtailed. That's what this is really about.
"We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can by apps. Think of it as a grocery store for apps. You know, an app store."
In the Windows world, it would be a Program Store. Look at any Windows computer and there's nothing called an application or an app. MS claims to have, like 95% of the desktop market. How would the gazillion Windows users out there even know what an "app" was? They've had zero exposure to it, it's a totally foreign term. Wait a minute, it's an Apple term that is coming into common usage and now MS might have to change their language to get rid of the goofy term "program", conceding defeat, so its usage must be stopped or curtailed. That's what this is really about.
No comments:
Post a Comment