j_maddison
Sep 19, 05:22 AM
In Macbook/Pro are updating in Novemeber...It means Apple is 3 months behind all laptop manufactures...
I seriously doubt that Apple will let that happen, but then again, they are apple, they think differently!
Yep they do think 'differently', sadly it backfires on them occasionally. They already have the label of being a company that sells expensive/ overpriced hardware. Now they're risking developing a reputation for outdated hardware. Clever marketing there Apple :rolleyes:
I seriously doubt that Apple will let that happen, but then again, they are apple, they think differently!
Yep they do think 'differently', sadly it backfires on them occasionally. They already have the label of being a company that sells expensive/ overpriced hardware. Now they're risking developing a reputation for outdated hardware. Clever marketing there Apple :rolleyes:
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 07:24 PM
Bbiz,
Keep us posted. Worse case I pre order from Apple first
thing tomorrow then cancel if Radio Shack guarantees me
a phone later that day with their PIN program.
Keep us posted. Worse case I pre order from Apple first
thing tomorrow then cancel if Radio Shack guarantees me
a phone later that day with their PIN program.
janstett
Sep 15, 08:26 AM
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
dornoforpyros
Aug 27, 08:41 PM
you know what? I like the g5 powerbook next tuesday joke enough that I think MR should print it on a t-shirt! :)
edenwaith
Jul 14, 04:30 PM
I'm not concerned so much if this rumor is true or not, but I've never fully understood the need for more than one optical drives for most of the time. At work I've occasionally needed more than one optical drive to create back ups of software CDs, but that's about it. At home, however, the need just isn't there. The retarted Dell we have at home has two optical drives because Dell was too cheap to put in a single combo DVD-ROM/CD-RW. Instead they put in a CD-RW and a CD-ROM (it was SUPPOSED to have come with a DVD-ROM, but they didn't put it in). Times like that are just dumb.
Personally, I'd opt for more hard drive space. There was one PM model that supported up to four internal hard drives, I believe.
Personally, I'd opt for more hard drive space. There was one PM model that supported up to four internal hard drives, I believe.
daneoni
Aug 27, 07:34 PM
Now. But how much have iMac prices changed since release? I don't think they have. They released the iMac and MBP lines around the same time Yonah was intro'ed, and the iMacs did not see any speed bumps or price changes that I know of. Therefore they should be able to implement similar pricing with Conroe @ 2.4GHz, just with a profit margin closer to the iMac release amounts.
Of course they could always go for the 2.13GHz version, which is less expensive, and still plenty faster than the existing 1.83 :)
20" iMac prices have reduced....at least in the UK
Of course they could always go for the 2.13GHz version, which is less expensive, and still plenty faster than the existing 1.83 :)
20" iMac prices have reduced....at least in the UK
yac_moda
Jul 21, 12:39 PM
Get with the program you guys ...
... start think the way APPLE think :eek:
Apple will NOT release such a HIGH END MACchine without spotlighting a use :eek: :eek:
Such a most excellent MACchine would be released with Bluray and the computing power would be used to burn to ALL THAT SPACE in human as opposed to GEOLOGICAL time spans :eek: :eek: :eek:
... start think the way APPLE think :eek:
Apple will NOT release such a HIGH END MACchine without spotlighting a use :eek: :eek:
Such a most excellent MACchine would be released with Bluray and the computing power would be used to burn to ALL THAT SPACE in human as opposed to GEOLOGICAL time spans :eek: :eek: :eek:
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
meanmusic
Jul 20, 05:01 PM
According to Daily Tech Merom is already shipping! Intel announced it during Intel's Q2'06 earnings report. Is an upgraded MBP going to make an appearance at the WWDC?
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3421
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3421
Eidorian
Mar 26, 10:25 AM
I will wait to see what Spotlight is like.
Androidpwns
Mar 22, 02:55 PM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Spot on post :D
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Spot on post :D
k995
Apr 20, 06:08 AM
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
No they werent, what apple describes was already shows and build BEFORE iphone. If any apple basicly admits they copied it themselves and should get sued.
No they werent, what apple describes was already shows and build BEFORE iphone. If any apple basicly admits they copied it themselves and should get sued.
jwdsail
Apr 6, 12:08 PM
Maybe, just maybe, this would be the first Air I'd consider buying..
If, this update would bring Thunderbolt to the Air..
USB-only is still a deal-breaker for me, I'd rather walk to the internet, uphill, both ways, in the snow, than be that limited in a laptop..
An Air, with Thunderbolt... Wouldn't be my primary Mac, but would make an Air/iMac combo look better than a maxed-out 15" MBP...
Shrug..
If, this update would bring Thunderbolt to the Air..
USB-only is still a deal-breaker for me, I'd rather walk to the internet, uphill, both ways, in the snow, than be that limited in a laptop..
An Air, with Thunderbolt... Wouldn't be my primary Mac, but would make an Air/iMac combo look better than a maxed-out 15" MBP...
Shrug..
JM-Prod
Apr 10, 08:17 AM
Faster horses.
Hmm, you want a faster horse or did you think my comments were screaming for them?
If my expectation are met, it would be a revolution in editing.
The second since introducing digital non-linear editing in the late 80's.
Not faster horses.
Hmm, you want a faster horse or did you think my comments were screaming for them?
If my expectation are met, it would be a revolution in editing.
The second since introducing digital non-linear editing in the late 80's.
Not faster horses.
SC68Cal
Sep 18, 11:12 PM
I went ahead and bought my MacBook Pro because I can't do my schoolwork without a laptop. So, I'm really not paying much attention these days about future announcements :)
tjwaido
Apr 6, 10:28 AM
When they revamped Logic Pro they cut the price from $999 to $499.....fingers crossed for FCP.
I think you mean Final Cut Studio. Back when I first started editing it was $999 for Final Cut Pro, alone.
I think you mean Final Cut Studio. Back when I first started editing it was $999 for Final Cut Pro, alone.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:23 PM
Mike,
I know you're concerned about name-maybe Apple could license the use to you.
Leopard-Public beta like Vista. No-as it can be easily uploaded to torrent sites-like with the Tiger leaks. Apple should keep the preview ADC members only.
I know you're concerned about name-maybe Apple could license the use to you.
Leopard-Public beta like Vista. No-as it can be easily uploaded to torrent sites-like with the Tiger leaks. Apple should keep the preview ADC members only.
SuperSnake2012
Aug 5, 11:42 PM
Here, let me show you the art and science of rumoring (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/), Apple-style.
The funny thing is that the website is almost spot on with everything. :D
The funny thing is that the website is almost spot on with everything. :D
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:45 PM
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
Yep - and that's the reality of it. It isn't just about the consumer, it's about profit margins, product life cycles, sales, etc. Apple wants to please their customers of course, however at the end of the day, business is business. :cool:
Yep - and that's the reality of it. It isn't just about the consumer, it's about profit margins, product life cycles, sales, etc. Apple wants to please their customers of course, however at the end of the day, business is business. :cool:
madmax_2069
Dec 12, 04:57 PM
It's not a bad game but it could have been a lot better
Yeah for the amount of developing time and the money that went into GT5 yes it could have been way better then how it turned out. many things can be fixed with patches, but it should not have needed to on release. i can see a few bugs and such but not like when it first came out.
Yeah for the amount of developing time and the money that went into GT5 yes it could have been way better then how it turned out. many things can be fixed with patches, but it should not have needed to on release. i can see a few bugs and such but not like when it first came out.
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 11:52 AM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
BoredomBoy
Apr 6, 01:29 PM
...but people (in general) don't want tablets. They want iPads.
I would compare it to Christmas for me. My mother-in-law asked my wife what I wanted for Christmas. "Video games," was my wife's answer. No, I didn't want video games, I wanted Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and/or Mass Effect 2.
I would compare it to Christmas for me. My mother-in-law asked my wife what I wanted for Christmas. "Video games," was my wife's answer. No, I didn't want video games, I wanted Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and/or Mass Effect 2.
ictiosapiens
Aug 17, 04:39 AM
Could you give some evidence for that, except that they are underclocked on the MacBook Pro _when they are idle_?
And the Macbook... Nearly 50% underclocked, like the 950 was so amazing that it could be crippled by half of its mindblowing performance...
And the Macbook... Nearly 50% underclocked, like the 950 was so amazing that it could be crippled by half of its mindblowing performance...
Fredrick
Apr 25, 04:46 PM
Hear we go again, who ever filed the law suit, get a life. Lifes not all about trying to make money out of others, enjoy the product for what it is. And not from what you can make out of it!, and if your worried about being tracked, then you must be doing something wrong!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment