JDOG_
Oct 26, 01:34 PM
Hah, Adobe being committed to x86 Macs. If they meant it we would have had a universal binary update to Creative Suite 2 a lonnng time ago. :rolleyes:
Jonasgold
Apr 10, 11:53 PM
On the one hand he is right.
I work in IT, and the iPad to me is just a novelty toy.
I have one an use it for just 2 things(reading the newspaper and watching movies on the train to my work). And for just those 2 things it is rather expensive.
On the other hand the thing I liked the most about OS X, is that is able to be used hardcore-IT people(thanks to being a UNIX) and complete noobs. And this is something I miss in the iPad(for the iPhone I don't care, i have an SSH-app in case of emergency when I'm not near a computer and that's it.
Making couchbrowsers(cause thats what iPads are mostly used for) for non-tech people is good.
But I just hope they still care about tech-savy people in OS X.
I work in IT, and the iPad to me is just a novelty toy.
I have one an use it for just 2 things(reading the newspaper and watching movies on the train to my work). And for just those 2 things it is rather expensive.
On the other hand the thing I liked the most about OS X, is that is able to be used hardcore-IT people(thanks to being a UNIX) and complete noobs. And this is something I miss in the iPad(for the iPhone I don't care, i have an SSH-app in case of emergency when I'm not near a computer and that's it.
Making couchbrowsers(cause thats what iPads are mostly used for) for non-tech people is good.
But I just hope they still care about tech-savy people in OS X.
SuperCachetes
Apr 8, 05:09 PM
It should be offence, if anything, as in throwing their weight about the World.
That's clever there, that is. ;)
That's clever there, that is. ;)
Chundles
Sep 27, 10:47 AM
No, no, no! Don't you know, after 10.4.9 Apple has run out of numbers! It'd have to be 10.5.0!
:D
Couldn't resist...sorry!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
You're right, whatever will they doooooo??????
Insert InvisiText� Disclaimer that I know 10.4.10 does not equal 10.5.0 here.
:D
Couldn't resist...sorry!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
You're right, whatever will they doooooo??????
Insert InvisiText� Disclaimer that I know 10.4.10 does not equal 10.5.0 here.
more...
Angelo95210
Apr 24, 05:21 AM
Intel i3 or i5 CPU.
lincolntran
Nov 29, 11:22 AM
Baller, $280 for that though? And you gotta do all the work yourself? Weak.
Want everything to be done for you and hand to you on a silver plate? Weak.
Want everything to be done for you and hand to you on a silver plate? Weak.
more...
fs454
Apr 21, 10:55 AM
M11x ;) Still love my R2.
Air is better in many other ways though.
yeah, my best friend actually has an M11x R2. I love it, but still, at how compact the 11" Air is, I'm surprised it can max out Portal 2 easily.
Air is better in many other ways though.
yeah, my best friend actually has an M11x R2. I love it, but still, at how compact the 11" Air is, I'm surprised it can max out Portal 2 easily.
egretry
Nov 14, 09:44 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple has announced a partnership with a number of airlines (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/nov/14ipod.html) to provide in-flight iPod integration during flights.
According to the press release, these six airlines will begin offering their passengers iPod seat connections which power and charge their iPods during flight and allow the video content on their iPods to be viewed on the their seat back displays. The press release did not specify whether the iPod integration would be a first-class accommodation, as presumably that designation would be up to the individual airlines.
BOEING 747-400 -- The ultimate ipod accessory.:D :D :D :D :D
Apple has announced a partnership with a number of airlines (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/nov/14ipod.html) to provide in-flight iPod integration during flights.
According to the press release, these six airlines will begin offering their passengers iPod seat connections which power and charge their iPods during flight and allow the video content on their iPods to be viewed on the their seat back displays. The press release did not specify whether the iPod integration would be a first-class accommodation, as presumably that designation would be up to the individual airlines.
BOEING 747-400 -- The ultimate ipod accessory.:D :D :D :D :D
more...
mdgm
May 6, 07:31 AM
You're welcome. Hope you like your SSD upgrade. You may wish to take a look at http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1125400
Some older Mac Minis can have the CPU upgraded, but on both 09 Minis (they are very, very similar) the CPUs are definitely soldered on. This kind of info would be shown in a teardown of a Mac (these tend to be done fairly quickly after a new model is released)
Some older Mac Minis can have the CPU upgraded, but on both 09 Minis (they are very, very similar) the CPUs are definitely soldered on. This kind of info would be shown in a teardown of a Mac (these tend to be done fairly quickly after a new model is released)
iLucas
Mar 27, 10:23 AM
$3.60/gallon here in Evansville Indiana as of yesterday afternoon
more...
fotografica
Nov 5, 06:41 AM
It may out eye candy OS-X,but it's still Windows. If you put a dress on a pig,it's still a pig ;)..Not to mention the fact that a large % of PC's out there aren't even capable of running it.So if somebody has a choice to make of either getting a new PC to run Vista,or switch to OS-X??Things could get interesting this coming year...
Squonk
Nov 14, 09:40 AM
so then... maybe...
flyPod?
... just a thought.
I like that! :cool:
flyPod?
... just a thought.
I like that! :cool:
more...
MattInOz
Apr 21, 12:37 AM
I'm still a firm believer tablet computers need to come with the following to be considered "standard":
1) Soliataire
2) Minesweaper
3) Disk Defrag
4) A CD Burner
Other than that I do think Woz's comments were right on the money.
Sounds just like a modbook.
Doesn't Woz owner a good share of the Modbook company?
1) Soliataire
2) Minesweaper
3) Disk Defrag
4) A CD Burner
Other than that I do think Woz's comments were right on the money.
Sounds just like a modbook.
Doesn't Woz owner a good share of the Modbook company?
dmunz
Mar 25, 10:07 AM
I snagged an open box 16G from Best Buy for $388 all in last week.
When this popped up I decided to pick one from VZ and return the Best Buy unit. While I was at Verizon rchecking out with their last 16G some other guy came in looking for one.
Doing the math I was looking at saving $65 bucks minus the hassel of wiping and reboxing the thing; driving back to Bast Buy; loosing the six months no interest and setting up the new one. Not such a huge deal in my world so I offered it to the guy and he took it instead.
Maybe I scored some karma points...
FWIW
DLM
When this popped up I decided to pick one from VZ and return the Best Buy unit. While I was at Verizon rchecking out with their last 16G some other guy came in looking for one.
Doing the math I was looking at saving $65 bucks minus the hassel of wiping and reboxing the thing; driving back to Bast Buy; loosing the six months no interest and setting up the new one. Not such a huge deal in my world so I offered it to the guy and he took it instead.
Maybe I scored some karma points...
FWIW
DLM
more...
bond2
Sep 20, 12:26 PM
As the saying goes at Apple: "If you can't beat'em, dual'em"
I say whatever it takes to keep up. Doesn't bother me that there are two CPU's under the hood. Anyways I am sure that OS X is way more optimized for dual Processors than Windows 2000 or XP. Having OS X far outways the slight difference in hardware performance. OS X is specifically designed for Macs, and optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. No one that has a Dell, Compaq, Gateway...etc... can say the same thing about Windows. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft came out with a special Intel version of Windows or AMD version. Never gonna happen. I know most of you already know this but I just thought I'd throw it out there again.
I say whatever it takes to keep up. Doesn't bother me that there are two CPU's under the hood. Anyways I am sure that OS X is way more optimized for dual Processors than Windows 2000 or XP. Having OS X far outways the slight difference in hardware performance. OS X is specifically designed for Macs, and optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. No one that has a Dell, Compaq, Gateway...etc... can say the same thing about Windows. The only way that would happen is if Microsoft came out with a special Intel version of Windows or AMD version. Never gonna happen. I know most of you already know this but I just thought I'd throw it out there again.
clintob
Oct 27, 01:40 PM
I really want .mac, but it's just not compelling enough.
I keep my bookmarks sync'd between my Mac at home and my PC at work in Firefox with Foxmarks. Free extension.
I use gmail and yahoo for webmail. 2+gb of storage each. I'm debating which to stick with for calendar. I can use gmail and sync ical to it right now. However someone is already starting a service (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/spanningsync/browse_thread/thread/33374a59c38cbe15)which will let you completely sync Google cal and ical by being able to make changes to both (effectively duplicating what .mac gives you)
I could convert another gmail account into storage space with a plug in. Right now I use mediamax (http://www.mediamax.com/) for 25gb of FREE storage.
Flickr offers ways to publish right from iphoto for a very easy and free way to share photos online.
So for me to cough up the dough, .mac needs more, much more.
All of the above are compeltely valid points. However, there are two large weaknesses to this idea.
First, you're assuming that .mac users want to use Firefox as their browser. Many of us believe strongly that Safari is a better browser. I don't use plugins or extensions - I want my browser clean, slick, and simple. I like my fonts to appear the way they're intended. I was my interface consistent with the rest of my Apps.
Second, and more importantly, look at what you've done in each point. You've addressed each of .mac's features using a separate third party. Sure, you can duplicate any number of the features elsewhere. The reason .mac is useful is because it's all in one place. For many users, the idea of having to to Google for their Mail, Flickr for their photos, MediaMax for their storage, and all the while depend on third-party plugins to make it go round... it all just sounds like a headache. Sure, if you know what you're doing it works fine. But $8.25 a month really isn't that much for the simplicity and ease-of-use that .mac offers the average user.
Sure, we'd all love to see .mac get better. And I'm sure in time it will, but let's stop hating on it so much. For the day-to-day user, .mac is a great tool, simple and easy to use, and really isn't all that expensive in the scheme of things. It's two latte's a month... big deal.
I keep my bookmarks sync'd between my Mac at home and my PC at work in Firefox with Foxmarks. Free extension.
I use gmail and yahoo for webmail. 2+gb of storage each. I'm debating which to stick with for calendar. I can use gmail and sync ical to it right now. However someone is already starting a service (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/spanningsync/browse_thread/thread/33374a59c38cbe15)which will let you completely sync Google cal and ical by being able to make changes to both (effectively duplicating what .mac gives you)
I could convert another gmail account into storage space with a plug in. Right now I use mediamax (http://www.mediamax.com/) for 25gb of FREE storage.
Flickr offers ways to publish right from iphoto for a very easy and free way to share photos online.
So for me to cough up the dough, .mac needs more, much more.
All of the above are compeltely valid points. However, there are two large weaknesses to this idea.
First, you're assuming that .mac users want to use Firefox as their browser. Many of us believe strongly that Safari is a better browser. I don't use plugins or extensions - I want my browser clean, slick, and simple. I like my fonts to appear the way they're intended. I was my interface consistent with the rest of my Apps.
Second, and more importantly, look at what you've done in each point. You've addressed each of .mac's features using a separate third party. Sure, you can duplicate any number of the features elsewhere. The reason .mac is useful is because it's all in one place. For many users, the idea of having to to Google for their Mail, Flickr for their photos, MediaMax for their storage, and all the while depend on third-party plugins to make it go round... it all just sounds like a headache. Sure, if you know what you're doing it works fine. But $8.25 a month really isn't that much for the simplicity and ease-of-use that .mac offers the average user.
Sure, we'd all love to see .mac get better. And I'm sure in time it will, but let's stop hating on it so much. For the day-to-day user, .mac is a great tool, simple and easy to use, and really isn't all that expensive in the scheme of things. It's two latte's a month... big deal.
more...
DrJohnnyN
Mar 7, 05:28 PM
:apple:
Why wait outdoors (Knox) when you can wait indoors (Northpark)?
Why wait outdoors (Knox) when you can wait indoors (Northpark)?
TwinCities Dan
Mar 13, 02:19 PM
VZW iPhone here as well, everything is fine. :rolleyes:
kiljoy616
Mar 25, 09:34 AM
I would really like to read the patent.
It'll be interesting to see how this one turns out . . . I really need to get back to writing patents, there is big money involved there.
Even more defending them. :p
It'll be interesting to see how this one turns out . . . I really need to get back to writing patents, there is big money involved there.
Even more defending them. :p
Xavier
Mar 13, 09:47 AM
My Verizon iPhone found the correct time. All is well over here.
slidingjon
Nov 14, 09:14 AM
Since this is Zune launch day:
Seeing as apple now has a majority of auto makers making connectivity and now the airline industry is getting on board, this is a major blow to the Zune. Neither cars nor airplanes will come with every connection possible so that any media player can be used. This is a great step for apple and potential apple customers.
How about a built-in mag safe connector for the airplanes too? :)
Seeing as apple now has a majority of auto makers making connectivity and now the airline industry is getting on board, this is a major blow to the Zune. Neither cars nor airplanes will come with every connection possible so that any media player can be used. This is a great step for apple and potential apple customers.
How about a built-in mag safe connector for the airplanes too? :)
coder12
Apr 19, 09:55 AM
My post is "coming soon"......IN PURPLE TEXT!!!!;)
After reading this I feel sexually confused :confused:
After reading this I feel sexually confused :confused:
King Cobra
Sep 15, 12:31 PM
>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?
You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.
>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?
You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.
:D
scem, I think in due time the price of Apple's hardware will come down. Take a look at the prices of the Macintosh/Apple product line. The Macintosh II was valued at I think over $6000. The G4/G3 motherboard was worth up to $3500 I think. Now, the Dual 1.25GHz model sells for around $3300, if you don't feel like chugging in THAT much RAM.
My guess is that in a couple of years Apple's PowerMacs will be reduced to near equivalent prices as when the first dual GHz PowerMacs came out, topping out at $3000.
You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.
>Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?
You certainly don't get the most stable OS with a PC.
:D
scem, I think in due time the price of Apple's hardware will come down. Take a look at the prices of the Macintosh/Apple product line. The Macintosh II was valued at I think over $6000. The G4/G3 motherboard was worth up to $3500 I think. Now, the Dual 1.25GHz model sells for around $3300, if you don't feel like chugging in THAT much RAM.
My guess is that in a couple of years Apple's PowerMacs will be reduced to near equivalent prices as when the first dual GHz PowerMacs came out, topping out at $3000.
dscuber9000
Apr 3, 01:08 PM
You mean we can't spend significantly less money on taxes and have the same quality of government? Shocker... :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment