iStudentUK
Mar 31, 03:27 PM
When the Nazis like practically conquered everyone in their path and are invading the UK, the Brits had to transfer a lot of technologies they made for the war to the US...where the US industrial might pretty much defined what we know today as "air dominance".
During the Battle of Britain the British Isles alone produced more aircraft than the Nazis. An impressive feat considering the resources available to the Germans. The Battle of Britain took place in the summer of 1940, the lend-lease agreement with the US (which dramatically increased US supplies to the UK) was signed in 1941.
In 1944 more men landed on the beaches of Normandy fighting under a British flag than the stars and stripes. 1/3 of the airborne troops that landed were British. The Royal Navy accounted for around 75% of the ships used (remember in 1939 the Royal Navy was the world's largest, and remained significant throughout WWII). America and Britain had roughly equal numbers of aircraft available.
However, the D-day was a side show in Europe. Britain (and her empire) and America took some of the pressure off Russia but not much more. As my history teacher used to say- WWII was fought on three continents- Europe, Africa and Asia. The Soviets did the most for Europe, the British Empire for Africa and the US for Asia.
I'm not saying Britain won WWII, or that it would have been possible without the US. I'm just pointing out that many people seem to be under the impression that the US dominated WWII, maybe because in the 21st century the US has a much larger armed forces than Britain, and a better equipped on than Russia, but the situation was a bit different back then.
During the Battle of Britain the British Isles alone produced more aircraft than the Nazis. An impressive feat considering the resources available to the Germans. The Battle of Britain took place in the summer of 1940, the lend-lease agreement with the US (which dramatically increased US supplies to the UK) was signed in 1941.
In 1944 more men landed on the beaches of Normandy fighting under a British flag than the stars and stripes. 1/3 of the airborne troops that landed were British. The Royal Navy accounted for around 75% of the ships used (remember in 1939 the Royal Navy was the world's largest, and remained significant throughout WWII). America and Britain had roughly equal numbers of aircraft available.
However, the D-day was a side show in Europe. Britain (and her empire) and America took some of the pressure off Russia but not much more. As my history teacher used to say- WWII was fought on three continents- Europe, Africa and Asia. The Soviets did the most for Europe, the British Empire for Africa and the US for Asia.
I'm not saying Britain won WWII, or that it would have been possible without the US. I'm just pointing out that many people seem to be under the impression that the US dominated WWII, maybe because in the 21st century the US has a much larger armed forces than Britain, and a better equipped on than Russia, but the situation was a bit different back then.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 24, 09:22 PM
If Apple's marketing of the Intel Macs is really in high gear then I would have to say seeing Core 2 Duo in highly likely for September.
During the start of this week I tried to buy a new MacBook or MacBook Pro at Nextbyte computers in Sydney. The Apple guys there told me that all they had left in terms of MacBook and MacBook Pro stock was the floor stock (which I didn't want) they also said that they were expecting a "very big" shipment second to third week of September which is inline with the release of the Core 2 Duo.
Personally I think we will see the Core 2 Duo in Macs as soon as Apple gets there hands on it
During the start of this week I tried to buy a new MacBook or MacBook Pro at Nextbyte computers in Sydney. The Apple guys there told me that all they had left in terms of MacBook and MacBook Pro stock was the floor stock (which I didn't want) they also said that they were expecting a "very big" shipment second to third week of September which is inline with the release of the Core 2 Duo.
Personally I think we will see the Core 2 Duo in Macs as soon as Apple gets there hands on it
polsons
Jan 11, 07:20 AM
As a fellow Australian imac_japan i'll support your enthusiasm, but as one who is old enough to have actually witnessed the history of Apple I think you are about to be enormously disappointed
If indeed a headless Mac does materialize, it will not be the first to have come from Apple. Apple have tried this concept many times before and all attempts have failed miserably. Maybe a dual G5 Cube for the price of an eMac might have some success, but a miserably under specified G4 (as is being claimed) is DEAD even before it hits the stores.
True the end may be near for Apple's hardware (5 or 10 years so to speak), but MacOS will be around for as long as computers continue to be manufactured. Even the most pessimistic analyst will concede that MacOS X and Apple's apps on x86 would see Microsoft as the world's second largest software developer. And who really cares about the hardware. The best PC hardware is every bit as good as Apple's hardware....it's just that the software stinks.
Let's be honest here. Do we really want Mac OS X to become MS Windows? Yes, Windows has thousands of apps not available on Mac, but most are developed by egotistical script kiddies with absolutely no idea of what they are doing, and then trying to pass it off as the greatest app ever written solely because they coded it. The best Windows apps always have been and probably always will be available on Mac. But they are long established mature apps developed by long established developers. If you can't afford them, then buy a PC and be content with using script kiddie crap.
And therein lies the unique and most appealing aspect of Apple hardware. MORONS can't afford it. As long as Apple keeps developing MacOS X and morons are forced to buy Windows PC's, I'll remain very happy with the current situation as it stands. No $499 headless Mac and no Mac in every home for me thank you. As far as I am concerned, the last thing I want to see is a user base swarming with dickheads. Windows has already reached that plateau, and sadly Linux is running not that far behind.
If indeed a headless Mac does materialize, it will not be the first to have come from Apple. Apple have tried this concept many times before and all attempts have failed miserably. Maybe a dual G5 Cube for the price of an eMac might have some success, but a miserably under specified G4 (as is being claimed) is DEAD even before it hits the stores.
True the end may be near for Apple's hardware (5 or 10 years so to speak), but MacOS will be around for as long as computers continue to be manufactured. Even the most pessimistic analyst will concede that MacOS X and Apple's apps on x86 would see Microsoft as the world's second largest software developer. And who really cares about the hardware. The best PC hardware is every bit as good as Apple's hardware....it's just that the software stinks.
Let's be honest here. Do we really want Mac OS X to become MS Windows? Yes, Windows has thousands of apps not available on Mac, but most are developed by egotistical script kiddies with absolutely no idea of what they are doing, and then trying to pass it off as the greatest app ever written solely because they coded it. The best Windows apps always have been and probably always will be available on Mac. But they are long established mature apps developed by long established developers. If you can't afford them, then buy a PC and be content with using script kiddie crap.
And therein lies the unique and most appealing aspect of Apple hardware. MORONS can't afford it. As long as Apple keeps developing MacOS X and morons are forced to buy Windows PC's, I'll remain very happy with the current situation as it stands. No $499 headless Mac and no Mac in every home for me thank you. As far as I am concerned, the last thing I want to see is a user base swarming with dickheads. Windows has already reached that plateau, and sadly Linux is running not that far behind.
Edge100
Sep 1, 12:28 PM
I'm not sure about this one. It will depend on how agressively Apple prices these.
I have a 20" iMac, and with my edu discount (at the time), I paid about $2500 (Canadian) for it with 2GB RAM (from Apple...was cheaper than anywhere else, believe it or not!), 256MB VRAM, and a 250GB HD.
For about $350-450, I can get a decent (not great, but decent) 20" widescreen display and hook it up to my iMac, giving me 3360 x 1050 resolution, which is plenty wide enough to display 36+ faders in Logic, plus some other apps (Live, Reason) that I use with it. A 23" display would only give me 1920 x 1200.
The point is: depending on how Apple prices it, I can get the 20" plus an external monitor and get more space for less money.
I can see this working if (a) the 23" isn't substantially more expensive than the 20" AND (b) there are a few other things (i.e. bigger HD, more RAM, faster/better vid card) to distinguish the machines. This is the precise reason I didn't get the 500GB drive in my iMac...I went up to 250, but I could make up the additional 250GB over Firewire for a lot less.
Either way, these should be sweet. I love my iMac (it does EVERYTHING I need today) and I don't anticipate upgrading for a number of years (well, maybe I'll slap in a Merom after the Applecare expires!)
Anyway, just my two cents.
I have a 20" iMac, and with my edu discount (at the time), I paid about $2500 (Canadian) for it with 2GB RAM (from Apple...was cheaper than anywhere else, believe it or not!), 256MB VRAM, and a 250GB HD.
For about $350-450, I can get a decent (not great, but decent) 20" widescreen display and hook it up to my iMac, giving me 3360 x 1050 resolution, which is plenty wide enough to display 36+ faders in Logic, plus some other apps (Live, Reason) that I use with it. A 23" display would only give me 1920 x 1200.
The point is: depending on how Apple prices it, I can get the 20" plus an external monitor and get more space for less money.
I can see this working if (a) the 23" isn't substantially more expensive than the 20" AND (b) there are a few other things (i.e. bigger HD, more RAM, faster/better vid card) to distinguish the machines. This is the precise reason I didn't get the 500GB drive in my iMac...I went up to 250, but I could make up the additional 250GB over Firewire for a lot less.
Either way, these should be sweet. I love my iMac (it does EVERYTHING I need today) and I don't anticipate upgrading for a number of years (well, maybe I'll slap in a Merom after the Applecare expires!)
Anyway, just my two cents.
snberk103
Apr 10, 11:05 AM
Both "four on the floor" and "three on the tree". Learned to drive with the "three on the tree" in an old (1968?) Jeep Wagoneer. Big heavy clutch, no power steering. It was brutal in traffic.
However, being able to drive the '3 on the tree' once got me a job at a summer camp - as they had an old Dodge Van (iirc). During the summer I only had to drive that van once (I was the person on the crew who could), and the rest of the time I drove the newer automatic van out and about all over the Catskills of NY, and into NYC as well, picking up and delivering people and stuff.
That was a great summer! If I hadn't been able to drive that standard van, I would've spent the summer cutting grass and weeding the flower beds (which I did enough of as it was ..)
However, being able to drive the '3 on the tree' once got me a job at a summer camp - as they had an old Dodge Van (iirc). During the summer I only had to drive that van once (I was the person on the crew who could), and the rest of the time I drove the newer automatic van out and about all over the Catskills of NY, and into NYC as well, picking up and delivering people and stuff.
That was a great summer! If I hadn't been able to drive that standard van, I would've spent the summer cutting grass and weeding the flower beds (which I did enough of as it was ..)
/user/me
Mar 23, 01:38 PM
No, no one is forced to do anything. Apple is more extreme with what they will and will not allow. Others follow suit b/c they know Apple changes the world. Android market allows practically everything.
As far as I know there's three rules that have to be followed when designing an iOS app.
1. No porn
2. no flash
3. it has to be approved.
I really dont' think that's too much to ask.... especially since Apple has complete ownership of the app store. Nbody's forcing you to get their procuts... If you dont' like it, buy an Android phone.
As far as I know there's three rules that have to be followed when designing an iOS app.
1. No porn
2. no flash
3. it has to be approved.
I really dont' think that's too much to ask.... especially since Apple has complete ownership of the app store. Nbody's forcing you to get their procuts... If you dont' like it, buy an Android phone.
thegoldenmackid
Jan 12, 05:47 PM
MacBook Air
(exclusive Specs)
Has 0 Ports (just power)
Connects to "new wireless device almost like airport express..which to that you can hook up...."
dvd/cd burner
usb ports for iPods/iPhones etc
printers etc
Has slim hard drive
6-8hours battery
this is crap,
no one in their right mind would make something with 0 ports, you have to at a bare minimum have an audio out.
(exclusive Specs)
Has 0 Ports (just power)
Connects to "new wireless device almost like airport express..which to that you can hook up...."
dvd/cd burner
usb ports for iPods/iPhones etc
printers etc
Has slim hard drive
6-8hours battery
this is crap,
no one in their right mind would make something with 0 ports, you have to at a bare minimum have an audio out.
boncellis
Jul 18, 01:37 PM
I think rentals are sometimes the way to go. If I want to watch a movie once, a rental is perfect. If I want to watch it 2 or 3 times over many years, I might as well rent it more than once. But I want to watch it many times, month after month or year after year, I ought to own a copy, to save the expense and trouble of renting it. I already have both choices in "hardcopy" format. I'd like to have both choices online too, as conveniently as possible.
Totally agree. Supposedly Mr. Jobs "lost" this round of negotiations...I wouldn't be surprised if he ceded that point to the studios because he knows something is around the corner. One possibility that jumps to mind is competition between studios to be the first to provide pay-to-own content.
This is just the ground floor--not if, but when it happens.
Totally agree. Supposedly Mr. Jobs "lost" this round of negotiations...I wouldn't be surprised if he ceded that point to the studios because he knows something is around the corner. One possibility that jumps to mind is competition between studios to be the first to provide pay-to-own content.
This is just the ground floor--not if, but when it happens.
Ted Witcher
Mar 22, 05:40 PM
Oh, wait, I see. Voyager.
Alan-in-NC
Mar 23, 08:03 PM
I cracked open my 5th gen 80GB last year and replaced it with a 220GB kit from Apricorn, so I'm not sure why this drive has been described as "new".
Regardless, like many people here, my library is huge (over 12K songs, plus videos, podcasts, etc), so a flash-based iPod wasn't a solution for me. I'm glad they'll keep the Classic going for awhile longer.
Regardless, like many people here, my library is huge (over 12K songs, plus videos, podcasts, etc), so a flash-based iPod wasn't a solution for me. I'm glad they'll keep the Classic going for awhile longer.
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
ingenious
Apr 7, 09:19 AM
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
maybe thats because its not true and most mac articles are written by very wintel biased writers.
maybe thats because its not true and most mac articles are written by very wintel biased writers.
Mainyehc
Nov 28, 01:08 PM
Money talks. A big ad campaign will produce much increased Zune sales.
And it's also true for Apple. Many people buy iPods because they have seen all of those TV ads and billboards, not because they did extensive comparison shopping.
Come to think of it, a good number of iPod purchasers are filling demands of their kids, who specifically plead for iPods. And kids are greatly influenced by advertising.
Which kids? The same kids who are specifically pleading for MacBooks? ... Windows, and the ever-uncool Microsoft is getting long in the tooth (and those who may want Vista will have to start thinking about replacing their old PCs anyway), and and the Zune is too late in the game. It doesn't matter that they have 95% of PC marketshare and a lot of money to burn. So did the Roman Empire, for that matter (money, not marketshare :p )! Remember what that guy from Creative said about "spending billions on advertising"? Dit it work? They even had to resort to a foul patent infringement lawsuit to earn some cash and keep afloat!
Sure, if there's a company that can easily perform a media-blitz, it's Microsoft, but OTOH, if there's a company which is ALREADY doing it (try "doing it from day one"), it's Apple... It's actually quite impressive for such a small company! But then again, everything Apple does is quite impressive on its own. ;)
Anyway, isn't Apple historically a very marketing-happy company? "1984", "Lemmings", "Think Different", "Switch", "Silhouettes", now the "Get a Mac" campaign... Unlike a company we know, which is almost exclusively marketing-driven (FUD, vaporware, "Office Dinossaurs", "Start... something... whatever"... "Welcome to the Social", WTF?... :rolleyes: ). Apple has a top notch product, and M$ does not. And they will certainly respond if M$ even attempts doing something that remotely resembles a media-blitz, and will certainly come out on top (especially if, as a product-driven company that they are, they keep coming up with a stream of new, competitive iPods...).
The Zune is DOA, I'm afraid... And Microsoft isn't looking too good, either, and even though they'll still be around 10-15 years from now, they probably won't reach their 50th anniversary (unlike Apple, I'm guessing)... I might be wrong, but IMHO, this whole Zune-to-be debacle will be the first (or is it?) among many nails in M$'s coffin, because in this case they initially set out to compete with an established and nearly invincible leader, unlike their constant (and not that successful) attempts at controling emerging markets. Honestly, why does M$ keeps trying to "innovate" on each and every market, instead of just focusing on the PC platform? They are only making fools of themselves by reusing (our outright copying) other companies' designs, by slapping stock photos and un-catchy slogans all over their software and websites, etc... :rolleyes:
People may have fallen for their lines for 20+ years, but they may one day wise up as far as the PC market is concerned, I hope (of course, someone would have to come up with a viable Windows competitor, whether Apple's own OS X - not very likely for reasons everyone in this board is more than aware of -, or some OSS driven platform, who knows?)... Because they're already showing signs of that on the consumer electronics market. :cool:
And it's also true for Apple. Many people buy iPods because they have seen all of those TV ads and billboards, not because they did extensive comparison shopping.
Come to think of it, a good number of iPod purchasers are filling demands of their kids, who specifically plead for iPods. And kids are greatly influenced by advertising.
Which kids? The same kids who are specifically pleading for MacBooks? ... Windows, and the ever-uncool Microsoft is getting long in the tooth (and those who may want Vista will have to start thinking about replacing their old PCs anyway), and and the Zune is too late in the game. It doesn't matter that they have 95% of PC marketshare and a lot of money to burn. So did the Roman Empire, for that matter (money, not marketshare :p )! Remember what that guy from Creative said about "spending billions on advertising"? Dit it work? They even had to resort to a foul patent infringement lawsuit to earn some cash and keep afloat!
Sure, if there's a company that can easily perform a media-blitz, it's Microsoft, but OTOH, if there's a company which is ALREADY doing it (try "doing it from day one"), it's Apple... It's actually quite impressive for such a small company! But then again, everything Apple does is quite impressive on its own. ;)
Anyway, isn't Apple historically a very marketing-happy company? "1984", "Lemmings", "Think Different", "Switch", "Silhouettes", now the "Get a Mac" campaign... Unlike a company we know, which is almost exclusively marketing-driven (FUD, vaporware, "Office Dinossaurs", "Start... something... whatever"... "Welcome to the Social", WTF?... :rolleyes: ). Apple has a top notch product, and M$ does not. And they will certainly respond if M$ even attempts doing something that remotely resembles a media-blitz, and will certainly come out on top (especially if, as a product-driven company that they are, they keep coming up with a stream of new, competitive iPods...).
The Zune is DOA, I'm afraid... And Microsoft isn't looking too good, either, and even though they'll still be around 10-15 years from now, they probably won't reach their 50th anniversary (unlike Apple, I'm guessing)... I might be wrong, but IMHO, this whole Zune-to-be debacle will be the first (or is it?) among many nails in M$'s coffin, because in this case they initially set out to compete with an established and nearly invincible leader, unlike their constant (and not that successful) attempts at controling emerging markets. Honestly, why does M$ keeps trying to "innovate" on each and every market, instead of just focusing on the PC platform? They are only making fools of themselves by reusing (our outright copying) other companies' designs, by slapping stock photos and un-catchy slogans all over their software and websites, etc... :rolleyes:
People may have fallen for their lines for 20+ years, but they may one day wise up as far as the PC market is concerned, I hope (of course, someone would have to come up with a viable Windows competitor, whether Apple's own OS X - not very likely for reasons everyone in this board is more than aware of -, or some OSS driven platform, who knows?)... Because they're already showing signs of that on the consumer electronics market. :cool:
WhySoSerious
May 3, 10:36 AM
I'm all for merging the two OS's together....but do we really need to hype a feature like this on the main page or even in the keynote presentation in June? Seriously, it's just an alternate method to delete an app....BIG FREAKING DEAL.
Guess I had/have higher expectations than most when it comes to Lion/iOS5...
Guess I had/have higher expectations than most when it comes to Lion/iOS5...
nagromme
Sep 6, 06:12 PM
Does anyone else think that Apple really really needs a rental model for the movie store? I'm against it with music but it's not the same a movies. I don't want my harddrive full of these things. I would be nice to rent one for much less, watch it and delete it. I don't see it being very successful if it is for purchase only.
Yes. I want rentals. I almost never want to see the same movie again, so I won't want to store it.
Rentals are what I would use. At a sufficiently low price, of course. $2 for close to DVD quality would be OK. (I'm less picky about rental quality than purchase quality.)
Yes. I want rentals. I almost never want to see the same movie again, so I won't want to store it.
Rentals are what I would use. At a sufficiently low price, of course. $2 for close to DVD quality would be OK. (I'm less picky about rental quality than purchase quality.)
gugy
Sep 1, 12:57 PM
Great,
Thanks for waking me up multimedia:D
I never really care for the Imac. As a second computer is great, but for me I rather have a Mac Pro. I am glad is possible to do that now.
Thanks for waking me up multimedia:D
I never really care for the Imac. As a second computer is great, but for me I rather have a Mac Pro. I am glad is possible to do that now.
lyzardking
May 8, 11:44 AM
wait, so are you running a3's on your 09s? or bigadv units?
also, congrats to whiterabbit for 15 million points!
a3's on the '08
-bigadv on the '09s (they occasionally pickup an a3)
Sorry about the confusion (I should reread what I type) :o
also, congrats to whiterabbit for 15 million points!
a3's on the '08
-bigadv on the '09s (they occasionally pickup an a3)
Sorry about the confusion (I should reread what I type) :o
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 03:57 PM
(Jesus, BBC reporting septics have fired 110 Tomahawks already, at $1 million each.
Raytheon shares will be on the up soon).
(plus the Brits have fired some)
Nice edit. CNN was first. :p
Raytheon shares will be on the up soon).
(plus the Brits have fired some)
Nice edit. CNN was first. :p
cube
Mar 24, 03:10 PM
Once again, Sandy Bridge will smoke the Llano CPU. The amount of applications that currently support OpenCL are slim to none. You can keep using your theoretical AMD video to somehow prove something but the fact remains: Sandy Bridge's CPU will outperform AMD's Llano in EVERY application that isn't supported for OpenCL, and it will outperform it in EVERY application that does have OpenCL support if you have a discrete GPU. End of story. Saying that Sandy Bridge is a 'bad purchase' is laughable at best when we haven't even seen any hard benchmarks, we've seen a video from AMD's own YouTube channel. What the hell do you expect them to upload? Them getting destroyed by Intel like they do in every other test that has been done since 2006?
I'd rather have a CPU that is a bit slower for non-OpenCL tasks, than a computer that is faster at that but is unusable for other things because it doesn't have OpenCL.
I'd rather have a CPU that is a bit slower for non-OpenCL tasks, than a computer that is faster at that but is unusable for other things because it doesn't have OpenCL.
adrianblaine
Oct 24, 06:13 AM
APPLE STORE IS DOWN,
no joke
at least in Germany
Thumbs up :)
The only stores I found still up were the US and Canada
no joke
at least in Germany
Thumbs up :)
The only stores I found still up were the US and Canada
freeny
Jan 2, 01:51 PM
So let's say that Steve announces iLife 07 and a release date for Leopard...
If I buy a new MacBook Pro on January 10, is it possible that either of those items might be a free "upgrade" or add-on once they're available? I'm trying to remember how that's worked in the past, but I just can't recall.
Can anyone help me out?
I would guess no. If it happens within 14 days you could return the computer for a new one with the new software installed.
If I buy a new MacBook Pro on January 10, is it possible that either of those items might be a free "upgrade" or add-on once they're available? I'm trying to remember how that's worked in the past, but I just can't recall.
Can anyone help me out?
I would guess no. If it happens within 14 days you could return the computer for a new one with the new software installed.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:10 PM
I don't believe you, that's my opinion.
I think thats why I said in the first sentence, "that's my opinion".
I think thats why I said in the first sentence, "that's my opinion".
slackpacker
Apr 13, 05:42 AM
Holy smoke what is with all the bitching in this thread?
Final Cut X is coming! It seems to have all the stuff i'm dying for.. maybe even CUDA support!
I'm sure it all done in Open CL and not CUDA. CUDA would only support a fraction of the users out there since all new Apple Laptops use AMD (ATI)
Final Cut X is coming! It seems to have all the stuff i'm dying for.. maybe even CUDA support!
I'm sure it all done in Open CL and not CUDA. CUDA would only support a fraction of the users out there since all new Apple Laptops use AMD (ATI)
ATG
Sep 7, 12:48 PM
To be honest I don't care about movies�
GET THE TV STORE IN THE UK ALREADY!!!! :mad:
GET THE TV STORE IN THE UK ALREADY!!!! :mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment