Stridder44
Nov 28, 09:06 PM
No guys, this sounds like a great idea....*cough*.....
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
ugp
Jun 9, 10:10 PM
I am doing my pre-order without even walking into the Store. The perks of knowing the Manager. He is going to take care of everything for me because I know he wants that SPIFF lol.
For any of your Radio Shack employees does your store plan on opening at 6AM? My friend said for the Evo launch they opened just for Evo customers at 6AM and he doesn't see any reason they would not do this for the iPhone 4 as well.
For any of your Radio Shack employees does your store plan on opening at 6AM? My friend said for the Evo launch they opened just for Evo customers at 6AM and he doesn't see any reason they would not do this for the iPhone 4 as well.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:17 PM
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
I read most of it. I haven't been carrying my birth certificate. It spent most of its time im Mom's china closet, where it still faded.
I read most of it. I haven't been carrying my birth certificate. It spent most of its time im Mom's china closet, where it still faded.
Gupster
Apr 7, 10:40 PM
d
EvilEvil
Apr 11, 03:55 PM
makes my recent iphone 4 purchase look like a good decision. Sorry for those who are waiting for the 5 :o
qft!
qft!
freeny
Aug 7, 04:25 PM
I really dont give a cr@p who made what first or who stole this or that. All I care is that it works....
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
mygoldens
Mar 22, 06:34 PM
It won�t sell because the iPad lines will block the view in store.
I will probably buy one! :D
There will not be any lines and hey, they might just have some stock!
What a novel idea! Have stock for a product that you say you produce, WOW what a concept!
I will probably buy one! :D
There will not be any lines and hey, they might just have some stock!
What a novel idea! Have stock for a product that you say you produce, WOW what a concept!
deadworlds
Mar 25, 11:58 PM
I'm really not looking forward to Lion at all. It just seems like a huge step backwards for those of us that use our computers as real computers and not toys. I have an ipad, an iphone and several macs, but they each have specific uses. I don't want my desktop machine to be anything like my ipad, one is for doing real work and doing my daily stuff on, the iOS gadgets are for fun games and browsing mostly.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I 100% agree!
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I 100% agree!
VanNess
Aug 6, 05:46 PM
So to post my top bets for WWDC...
1) A much clearer roadmap for 64 bit support in Mac OS X. I believe they will outline full 64 bit support across all non-10.4 deprecated frameworks (I believe in the initial release of 10.5). Of course it will also fully support 32 bit applications run side by side with 64 bit applications.
Check
2) Resolution Independent UI will be ready for main stream use with display products possible with in the next year or two (would love to be surprised with 150-200 DPI or so display of course).
Check. They've had a lot of time to work this one out.
3) Quartz 2D Extreme will be ready for main stream use along with some good news on the OpenGL front.
Check
4) Full roll out of the unified user interface look and fell across all frameworks and Apple applications (at least most).
Check, but I'm not one of the bozo militant unified interface nazis that apply the uno concept without exception across the board. In my mind, an OS should be an OS, not a unique application in and of itself. (Yeah, you Microsoft) The main thing an OS should do as far as the user is concerned should be relatively simple: assist you in finding and organizing your stuff in the easiest, most efficient manner possible. Other than that it should stay out of the way. All apps (regardless of whether they are Apple apps provided with the OS or any others) should honor the basic global UI elements of the OS, i.e., the three buttons at the top left of a window and general menu commands for opening, saving, etc.), but the appearance the application window should be left open to the application's author should it add some sort of benefit in using the application.
In other words, I like how Garageband has the faux studio mixing board wood paneling as part of it's window. It's not a matter of life and death, but it's pleasant and makes Garageband stand out from other apps for what it's intended purpose is. The unified interface nazis may disagree with this approach, but most of the GUI guidelines they cite about this stuff where valid back in the day of the original Mac OS, the original GUI. Times have changed and those guidelines never foresaw today's modern graphic abilities to approach the GUI in new innovative ways such as Expose, or Dashboard, or other uses of 3d as a an effective way of presenting a GUI to the user. So the uno concept is ok provided that it doesn't reverse course and head backward instead of forward.
5) Improved Quartz API to allow for more advanced window styles and effects.
Check, and see above.
6) PowerMac replacement with Quad core model... a true workstation class system (likely similar enclosure to what we have now in the PMG5).
Check. Sure, why not?
1) A much clearer roadmap for 64 bit support in Mac OS X. I believe they will outline full 64 bit support across all non-10.4 deprecated frameworks (I believe in the initial release of 10.5). Of course it will also fully support 32 bit applications run side by side with 64 bit applications.
Check
2) Resolution Independent UI will be ready for main stream use with display products possible with in the next year or two (would love to be surprised with 150-200 DPI or so display of course).
Check. They've had a lot of time to work this one out.
3) Quartz 2D Extreme will be ready for main stream use along with some good news on the OpenGL front.
Check
4) Full roll out of the unified user interface look and fell across all frameworks and Apple applications (at least most).
Check, but I'm not one of the bozo militant unified interface nazis that apply the uno concept without exception across the board. In my mind, an OS should be an OS, not a unique application in and of itself. (Yeah, you Microsoft) The main thing an OS should do as far as the user is concerned should be relatively simple: assist you in finding and organizing your stuff in the easiest, most efficient manner possible. Other than that it should stay out of the way. All apps (regardless of whether they are Apple apps provided with the OS or any others) should honor the basic global UI elements of the OS, i.e., the three buttons at the top left of a window and general menu commands for opening, saving, etc.), but the appearance the application window should be left open to the application's author should it add some sort of benefit in using the application.
In other words, I like how Garageband has the faux studio mixing board wood paneling as part of it's window. It's not a matter of life and death, but it's pleasant and makes Garageband stand out from other apps for what it's intended purpose is. The unified interface nazis may disagree with this approach, but most of the GUI guidelines they cite about this stuff where valid back in the day of the original Mac OS, the original GUI. Times have changed and those guidelines never foresaw today's modern graphic abilities to approach the GUI in new innovative ways such as Expose, or Dashboard, or other uses of 3d as a an effective way of presenting a GUI to the user. So the uno concept is ok provided that it doesn't reverse course and head backward instead of forward.
5) Improved Quartz API to allow for more advanced window styles and effects.
Check, and see above.
6) PowerMac replacement with Quad core model... a true workstation class system (likely similar enclosure to what we have now in the PMG5).
Check. Sure, why not?
dernhelm
Aug 7, 03:48 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Have you actually used System Restore to restore a single file? Oh that's right, you can't. All you can do it reset your system back to a point where the file existed.
This is MUCH more powerful, and more like something users would actually want.
System Restore is great for those times when you want to apply a system patch that could be iffy, and you are willing to "snap" a restore point, apply the patch, and roll back if something didn't fly.
But for the normal user, it is much more useless.
YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Have you actually used System Restore to restore a single file? Oh that's right, you can't. All you can do it reset your system back to a point where the file existed.
This is MUCH more powerful, and more like something users would actually want.
System Restore is great for those times when you want to apply a system patch that could be iffy, and you are willing to "snap" a restore point, apply the patch, and roll back if something didn't fly.
But for the normal user, it is much more useless.
TripHop
Jun 10, 05:55 PM
Gazelle (http://www.gazelle.com/) buys old iPhones too. :)
RebootD
Mar 25, 11:47 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)
If this is a standard $129 upgrade I don't see anything here worth that price sadly. That is unless somehow my 2009 mac pro will run 2x as fast but I am not keeping my fingers crossed.
If this is a standard $129 upgrade I don't see anything here worth that price sadly. That is unless somehow my 2009 mac pro will run 2x as fast but I am not keeping my fingers crossed.
fox10078
Apr 5, 10:47 PM
Compressor and DVDSP need help. I use both of them daily and my customer love that I shoot HD, now they want it delivered that way.
Tell a bride that just dropped $5k on her wedding video that she'll be getting it via digital download.
Please explain
A) Whats wrong with 3rd party blu-ray burning?
B) How in the hell are you getting paid 5k if you need Final Cut or anything associated to burn blu-ray
Tell a bride that just dropped $5k on her wedding video that she'll be getting it via digital download.
Please explain
A) Whats wrong with 3rd party blu-ray burning?
B) How in the hell are you getting paid 5k if you need Final Cut or anything associated to burn blu-ray
baryon
Mar 26, 08:31 AM
Unless I'm missing something, Mission Control is added in addition to Expos� as it is now. The old functionality will still be there. As for it being "ruined," a couple of days before the Lion preview the graphic artist I work with most was describing changes he wished they'd make to Expos� and we were laughing together a few days later when we watched the preview and boom, there it was. Incidentally, he makes his living off what he does with his "real" computer.
Unfortunately Expos� as you have it today is gone in Lion, and is replaced by Mission Control. What you still have in Lion is Expos� for the current app, which sort of defeats its purpose as most apps only have a single or not many windows open (thanks to tabs in Safari, etc...).
You no longer have expos� for all windows, which annoys me! You can also no longer see ALL your open windows in one glance, as you could zoom out of Spaces and do an Expos� before. Now you have to flick through all of your spaces one by one in Mission Control to see all your windows. And the icons for each space are tiny, making it very difficult to figure out what's on that space. I have no idea what was wrong with Spaces and Expos� in Leopard, why they needed to change Expos� in Snow Leopard, and why they needed to remove these features altogether in Lion. They were probably the best things in OS X.
Unfortunately Expos� as you have it today is gone in Lion, and is replaced by Mission Control. What you still have in Lion is Expos� for the current app, which sort of defeats its purpose as most apps only have a single or not many windows open (thanks to tabs in Safari, etc...).
You no longer have expos� for all windows, which annoys me! You can also no longer see ALL your open windows in one glance, as you could zoom out of Spaces and do an Expos� before. Now you have to flick through all of your spaces one by one in Mission Control to see all your windows. And the icons for each space are tiny, making it very difficult to figure out what's on that space. I have no idea what was wrong with Spaces and Expos� in Leopard, why they needed to change Expos� in Snow Leopard, and why they needed to remove these features altogether in Lion. They were probably the best things in OS X.
bigandy
Aug 5, 04:41 PM
cmon, ipod.....
WWDC = World Wide Developer Conference.
= Not Consumer Stuff.
It's been mentioned before... :rolleyes:
WWDC = World Wide Developer Conference.
= Not Consumer Stuff.
It's been mentioned before... :rolleyes:
bibbz
Jun 9, 08:48 AM
I like the trade-in part. But must we activate the phone in the store? I would rather take the sealed box home and activate there over the phone with AT&T. Will that be allowed? :confused:
No, we activate all phones in the store. we connect the phone to our cashlanes and open itunes and activate them after we are finished processing the upgrade inside ATT's system. The phone will be on, your numbers transferred and everything when you walk out the door. At least at my store. :)
But honestly this whole trade in thing sounds fishy. Why would they give you 270 for a phone you can buy brand new starting the launch date for half that.
Like i said, once the iPhone 4 launches, i would imagine the prices come down some on the trades, but as of last night, those were the values. We trade in 3G's for roughly $100 off 3G's all day at my store. Its a really good system. A lot of phones you don't get much for, like a original razr will get you about 10 bucks. We just pay out a lot for iphones.
This is a huge story. I don't understand why it wasn't posted on page 1 especially since learning of the Radio Shack Trade-In program. I think the Doctor should reconsider not putting this on Page 1. :confused:
Who do i need to PM this too, i would LOVE for The Shack to get this attention.
How can I check which stores will be carrying the phone on launch day? And also, if I go into a particular store next Tuesday and pre-order, you're saying I will be able to pick that phone up on the 24th?
Stores that carry the iPhone now should have them on launch, give your local store a call in the next few days and we should know.
this post is a LITTLE misleading... i looked on the site and it says UP TO
118$ for 8gb 3G.. which means it could go for less right ? if so you made it seems as not matter what your getting the prices you showed which i believe is wrong.. correct me if im wrong
Up to means we appraise the phone. In store we have a much more detailed system when we process the trade in. It's about 15 questions about the condition of the phone. If your phones in good shape, i promise you will get very close, if not exactly what the site says.
If you click on the phone you have it will ask for its condition and overall functionality. I have a newly-replaced 16gb 2G and it showed me that I can get $100 or something like that for it, for instance.
Thank you!!
Guys, if any of you are in DFW, shoot me a pm i will be more than happy to help you guys and get you your iPhone 4 setup at my store. I'll be getting mine there. :)
No, we activate all phones in the store. we connect the phone to our cashlanes and open itunes and activate them after we are finished processing the upgrade inside ATT's system. The phone will be on, your numbers transferred and everything when you walk out the door. At least at my store. :)
But honestly this whole trade in thing sounds fishy. Why would they give you 270 for a phone you can buy brand new starting the launch date for half that.
Like i said, once the iPhone 4 launches, i would imagine the prices come down some on the trades, but as of last night, those were the values. We trade in 3G's for roughly $100 off 3G's all day at my store. Its a really good system. A lot of phones you don't get much for, like a original razr will get you about 10 bucks. We just pay out a lot for iphones.
This is a huge story. I don't understand why it wasn't posted on page 1 especially since learning of the Radio Shack Trade-In program. I think the Doctor should reconsider not putting this on Page 1. :confused:
Who do i need to PM this too, i would LOVE for The Shack to get this attention.
How can I check which stores will be carrying the phone on launch day? And also, if I go into a particular store next Tuesday and pre-order, you're saying I will be able to pick that phone up on the 24th?
Stores that carry the iPhone now should have them on launch, give your local store a call in the next few days and we should know.
this post is a LITTLE misleading... i looked on the site and it says UP TO
118$ for 8gb 3G.. which means it could go for less right ? if so you made it seems as not matter what your getting the prices you showed which i believe is wrong.. correct me if im wrong
Up to means we appraise the phone. In store we have a much more detailed system when we process the trade in. It's about 15 questions about the condition of the phone. If your phones in good shape, i promise you will get very close, if not exactly what the site says.
If you click on the phone you have it will ask for its condition and overall functionality. I have a newly-replaced 16gb 2G and it showed me that I can get $100 or something like that for it, for instance.
Thank you!!
Guys, if any of you are in DFW, shoot me a pm i will be more than happy to help you guys and get you your iPhone 4 setup at my store. I'll be getting mine there. :)
BRLawyer
Aug 27, 10:43 AM
Especially the last paragraph of your rebuttal shows that you have not read ALL the threads about MB and MBp problems. I really would like to hear you, when you had your MBP replaced 3 times and still have problems... I have friends who just upgraded to MBPs all have one or more problems, ranging from screen, heat, whine, keyboard, and other problems, some of which they still have to discover. Sorry, buddy, but it truly looks like getting a good MBP is LUCK. I own a couple of laptops, my oldest ones are 9 years old (TOSHIBA), and never ever did I have problems like the ones described on these boards.
Proof my butt.... Wouldn"t it be nice if these threads had only happy APPLE fans? Dream on.
We are consumers, and should not accept getting a refurb lemon... but a new, preferably working product.
Well, it seems like you are the one having hard feelings...so chill out, since we all try to be polite in this forum...otherwise, just go visit some other place where you can vent your anger on people.
As I said above, I am talking about facts and statistics...I am sure there a few cases where guys are just unlucky and receive one lemon after another...but this does NOT represent a trend nor a relevant percentage. You must have this impression because you go to an Apple Support forum and see 100 posts complaining the hell out of it...you just fail, and fail badly, to realize that there are some 1,000,000 users out there with no problems at all.
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
Proof my butt.... Wouldn"t it be nice if these threads had only happy APPLE fans? Dream on.
We are consumers, and should not accept getting a refurb lemon... but a new, preferably working product.
Well, it seems like you are the one having hard feelings...so chill out, since we all try to be polite in this forum...otherwise, just go visit some other place where you can vent your anger on people.
As I said above, I am talking about facts and statistics...I am sure there a few cases where guys are just unlucky and receive one lemon after another...but this does NOT represent a trend nor a relevant percentage. You must have this impression because you go to an Apple Support forum and see 100 posts complaining the hell out of it...you just fail, and fail badly, to realize that there are some 1,000,000 users out there with no problems at all.
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 05:12 PM
Yeah, Apple is definitely copying Microsoft now... it's pretty undeniable. Time Machine is virtually identical to Microsoft's backup system for Vista.
"Previous Docs" from Wikipedia:
...
System Restore, Shadow Copy, and Backup in Vista now run on the same technology (so they are considerably different than the XP versions).
iChat basically got the remote screen sharing feature that Microsoft shipped with XP in 2001...
Mail and iCal got a bunch of features from Outlook 2007 and Windows Live Calendar/Mail.
Dashboard's ability to clip web pages is straight out of Active Desktop.
the Spotlight improvements were things that Indexing Server in XP/2000/2003 already did. ...
Spaces is virtual desktops just like the powertoy MS released years ago
...
Core Animation looks like Apple's response to all the DX and WPF (Avalon) animation tools in Vista.
Bingo !
"Previous Docs" from Wikipedia:
...
System Restore, Shadow Copy, and Backup in Vista now run on the same technology (so they are considerably different than the XP versions).
iChat basically got the remote screen sharing feature that Microsoft shipped with XP in 2001...
Mail and iCal got a bunch of features from Outlook 2007 and Windows Live Calendar/Mail.
Dashboard's ability to clip web pages is straight out of Active Desktop.
the Spotlight improvements were things that Indexing Server in XP/2000/2003 already did. ...
Spaces is virtual desktops just like the powertoy MS released years ago
...
Core Animation looks like Apple's response to all the DX and WPF (Avalon) animation tools in Vista.
Bingo !
farmboy
Apr 27, 09:02 AM
This is a lie
Just curious, do you use Reynolds Wrap or a store brand?
Just curious, do you use Reynolds Wrap or a store brand?
chrono1081
Mar 31, 03:46 PM
Let the Apple fanboys begin patting each other on the back, and taking something and running wild with it.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
Why does everyone start with the "Apple Fanboy!" BS? Its not necessary. You realize this is MacRumors right where if you say something nice about Apple you're a fanboy but you can insult Apple all day and be labeled as giving a fair opinion.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
Why does everyone start with the "Apple Fanboy!" BS? Its not necessary. You realize this is MacRumors right where if you say something nice about Apple you're a fanboy but you can insult Apple all day and be labeled as giving a fair opinion.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 06:04 AM
Damn PowerPC fans.
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
I know this is just a joke, but even so it's stupid, because the implication is that the only reason anyone here might like the chips Intel is coming out with is because they have been brainwashed into liking them now that Apple uses them (i.e. if Apple was still using PowerPC chips, or had switched to AMD, we would all be sitting here talking about how crappy the Core 2 Duo chips are).
I'm sure there are some people like that, but it is insulting to plenty of people here who actually do know something about the various chips that Intel and AMD make and base their opinions on them just on their actual merits and weaknesses.
-Zadillo
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
I know this is just a joke, but even so it's stupid, because the implication is that the only reason anyone here might like the chips Intel is coming out with is because they have been brainwashed into liking them now that Apple uses them (i.e. if Apple was still using PowerPC chips, or had switched to AMD, we would all be sitting here talking about how crappy the Core 2 Duo chips are).
I'm sure there are some people like that, but it is insulting to plenty of people here who actually do know something about the various chips that Intel and AMD make and base their opinions on them just on their actual merits and weaknesses.
-Zadillo
Silentwave
Aug 26, 04:48 PM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
But there's no die size change here....
and doesn't transitioning to a smaller process usually mean improvements in that department anyways?
Next die change is the 45nm Intel Core Microarchitecture "Penryn" core for mobile- mid-2007 or thereabouts.
But there's no die size change here....
and doesn't transitioning to a smaller process usually mean improvements in that department anyways?
Next die change is the 45nm Intel Core Microarchitecture "Penryn" core for mobile- mid-2007 or thereabouts.
No comments:
Post a Comment