Some_Big_Spoon
Aug 27, 01:19 AM
BTO's
The update time for Apple's store is 9am EST? I was under the impression that it was 9am PST. I'm behind the times! (pun intended, I suppose)
Is the 7-10 days for BTO iMacs? Or stock ones?
The update time for Apple's store is 9am EST? I was under the impression that it was 9am PST. I'm behind the times! (pun intended, I suppose)
Is the 7-10 days for BTO iMacs? Or stock ones?
kdarling
Apr 20, 09:17 AM
The key thing here from Apple's standpoint is "Trade Dress".
No one will ever confuse a Samsung F700 with an iPhone. Now way. No how.
However the Galaxy devices are so close to Apple's products in appearance and design, it's very hard to tell them apart. THAT is the problem.
It's ony a problem if the customer can't tell the Samsung is not an Apple device at point of sale.
As for the tablets, I think it'd be pretty hard to confuse a Tab with an iPad, or think that the Tab is made by Apple.
As for the phones, who knows. I have a Fascinate (Verizon Galaxy) and the stock live koi pond wallpaper kind of gives it away, but then I know that Apple doesn't allow that. The big "Samsung" printed on the front is also a major cue.
In either case, Apple could have to come up with proof that normal consumers are actually confused between the products.
Why are you always anti-apple in every
other thread?
When you bash him instead of giving arguments, you lost already. Too many immature kids around here crying "troll" instead of using their brain.
Samsung has no honor.
It seems their problem is that they had access to Apple's design and so were able to copy more closely than is usually the case with Apple competitors.
That's a silly accusation. Why would Apple give Samsung access to their design? They buy parts from them, not cases or software.
The iPhone has been out for years. Plenty of time for Samsung to adopt rounded corners without having any secret info.
Now, if the Galaxy had looked like an iPhone 4.... :)
No one will ever confuse a Samsung F700 with an iPhone. Now way. No how.
However the Galaxy devices are so close to Apple's products in appearance and design, it's very hard to tell them apart. THAT is the problem.
It's ony a problem if the customer can't tell the Samsung is not an Apple device at point of sale.
As for the tablets, I think it'd be pretty hard to confuse a Tab with an iPad, or think that the Tab is made by Apple.
As for the phones, who knows. I have a Fascinate (Verizon Galaxy) and the stock live koi pond wallpaper kind of gives it away, but then I know that Apple doesn't allow that. The big "Samsung" printed on the front is also a major cue.
In either case, Apple could have to come up with proof that normal consumers are actually confused between the products.
Why are you always anti-apple in every
other thread?
When you bash him instead of giving arguments, you lost already. Too many immature kids around here crying "troll" instead of using their brain.
Samsung has no honor.
It seems their problem is that they had access to Apple's design and so were able to copy more closely than is usually the case with Apple competitors.
That's a silly accusation. Why would Apple give Samsung access to their design? They buy parts from them, not cases or software.
The iPhone has been out for years. Plenty of time for Samsung to adopt rounded corners without having any secret info.
Now, if the Galaxy had looked like an iPhone 4.... :)
kdarling
Apr 6, 02:32 PM
As was pointed out by a previous poster, iOS was developed for tablet use.
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first, although its idea of using a touch UI was not.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first, although its idea of using a touch UI was not.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:55 AM
I agree, increasing the number of cores can't be the only solution on long term. In my opinion it's time to rethink CPUs: Single, maybe dual core, high processing* power with extremly low power consumption, much lower than we have nowadays.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
KnightWRX
Apr 6, 03:33 PM
I don't mean to say that with a 27" iMac at home, one couldn't be happily mobile with a 13" MacBook Air if they so desired, I just don't think it has enough going for it to make it worthy of being stand-alone to anyone who isn't either (a) bat-**** crazy about about the MacBook Air or (b) very simple in their computing needs.
I think you need to define very simple, because the MBA can run about everything. Lets face it, computers have been capable of running pretty much anything for the last decade, the upgrades stopped being as meaningful as they used to be quite some time ago.
I'm a Unix sysadmin, the MBA is my only computer. I do casual gaming on it, I use it to do graphics for my website using CS5, I use it for my work (using a VM), I use it to do my hobby coding, I use it to watch TV series and Anime in 720p. It has the upside of being light and small, so carrying it around on the motorcycle for when I'm on stand-by is less of a pain than 15" MBP or even a 13" MBP (which I had before, when it was called the Unibody Macbook).
Call me bat-**** crazy or my needs "simple", but it works for me as a stand-alone computer.
I think you need to define very simple, because the MBA can run about everything. Lets face it, computers have been capable of running pretty much anything for the last decade, the upgrades stopped being as meaningful as they used to be quite some time ago.
I'm a Unix sysadmin, the MBA is my only computer. I do casual gaming on it, I use it to do graphics for my website using CS5, I use it for my work (using a VM), I use it to do my hobby coding, I use it to watch TV series and Anime in 720p. It has the upside of being light and small, so carrying it around on the motorcycle for when I'm on stand-by is less of a pain than 15" MBP or even a 13" MBP (which I had before, when it was called the Unibody Macbook).
Call me bat-**** crazy or my needs "simple", but it works for me as a stand-alone computer.
QuarterSwede
Aug 12, 07:48 AM
It may have been leaked on purpose. In light of the recent investigation into financial irregularities, this may have been to steady the floor.
Also regarding mobile-phone saturation in Europe, i'd have to say it's almost 100%. I don't think Americans realise how cheap and easy it is to get a phone in Europe. It has gotten to the stage where they are almost a disposable item. For 50 euro you can get a nokia camera-phone, with 40 euro call credit. Of course this will be an entry level phone, but decent nonetheless.
Every kid here in Ireland seems to have one. Only last week i helped a homeless man enter credit into his phone, I couldn't believe it, i was shocked when he asked me. Turns out its not so uncommon, charities give them old phones and help keep them charged. It represents some security for them, emergency calls are always free.
You can get a cheap cell phone in the US as well. We call them track phones, go phones, boost (pay to add minutes to the phone). Even drug dealers use them so they can toss the phone when the deal is done and not be tracked. In the long run they are much more expensive then just getting a provider and plan.
Back on topic, Apple's iPhone will have to be pretty sweet and work very well for me to buy one. I love my SE W600i for the UI alone. Its very intuitive and works very well.
I'm thinking it'll look similarly like the Nano (as to kill the RAZR in size) yet have a click wheel that is integrated into the key pad. I saw a mockup last year that was VERY convincing because it was ingenious but haven't seen it since. The clickwheel was indented into the keypad area. I wish I could find that picture.
Also regarding mobile-phone saturation in Europe, i'd have to say it's almost 100%. I don't think Americans realise how cheap and easy it is to get a phone in Europe. It has gotten to the stage where they are almost a disposable item. For 50 euro you can get a nokia camera-phone, with 40 euro call credit. Of course this will be an entry level phone, but decent nonetheless.
Every kid here in Ireland seems to have one. Only last week i helped a homeless man enter credit into his phone, I couldn't believe it, i was shocked when he asked me. Turns out its not so uncommon, charities give them old phones and help keep them charged. It represents some security for them, emergency calls are always free.
You can get a cheap cell phone in the US as well. We call them track phones, go phones, boost (pay to add minutes to the phone). Even drug dealers use them so they can toss the phone when the deal is done and not be tracked. In the long run they are much more expensive then just getting a provider and plan.
Back on topic, Apple's iPhone will have to be pretty sweet and work very well for me to buy one. I love my SE W600i for the UI alone. Its very intuitive and works very well.
I'm thinking it'll look similarly like the Nano (as to kill the RAZR in size) yet have a click wheel that is integrated into the key pad. I saw a mockup last year that was VERY convincing because it was ingenious but haven't seen it since. The clickwheel was indented into the keypad area. I wish I could find that picture.
ppnkg
Jul 27, 07:07 PM
With those frequent speed bumps I begin to worry that my G5 imac will not be fast enough to run Leopard...
AngryCorgi
Apr 7, 08:28 PM
Not on an iPad... (which was my point)
:)
Actually...did you see the photoshop tech demo on the ipad2? They are getting REALLY close!
:)
Actually...did you see the photoshop tech demo on the ipad2? They are getting REALLY close!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
chrmjenkins
Apr 27, 10:32 AM
I'm a little confused at the magnitude of people's reaction here.
Cell phone companies already do this. This is how they track potential crime victims locations'. They can access the cellular provider's database and get a ping with a cell tower and location. This is also timestamped. Your cellular provider already has more information than Apple ever had.
Cell phone companies already do this. This is how they track potential crime victims locations'. They can access the cellular provider's database and get a ping with a cell tower and location. This is also timestamped. Your cellular provider already has more information than Apple ever had.
�algiris
Mar 31, 02:32 PM
Good. I hope they take one of the last strengths of the iPad ecosystem away from it.
One of the last? Oh boy ...
One of the last? Oh boy ...
shamino
Jul 21, 12:45 PM
I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
SeaFox
Nov 28, 08:37 PM
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
portishead
Apr 12, 12:54 PM
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
Stridder44
Apr 25, 03:40 PM
Wow, ignorance is bliss I guess. These idiots are going to sue Google next, right? Because if they think iOS is bad about tracking people, they're going to lose their s--t when they see what Android does.
Reach
Sep 19, 12:05 PM
History has shown that having a product out sooner... doesn't mean you win the market.
Playstation?
The video game market is completely different, the analogy is just a stupid attempt at making people that think Apple should realease up-to-date hardware look stupid. Have fun at that, it didnt do much in convincing me that I should buy a CD when a C2D is just around the corner.
All you people trying to make us feel like complete morons for waiting and wanting a new (AND BETTER) chip, what's wrong with you?! Did you just buy a MBP and feel the need to piss on everyone that is about to get a beter machine than you? Or is it just PMS or some other hormonal condition?
Playstation?
The video game market is completely different, the analogy is just a stupid attempt at making people that think Apple should realease up-to-date hardware look stupid. Have fun at that, it didnt do much in convincing me that I should buy a CD when a C2D is just around the corner.
All you people trying to make us feel like complete morons for waiting and wanting a new (AND BETTER) chip, what's wrong with you?! Did you just buy a MBP and feel the need to piss on everyone that is about to get a beter machine than you? Or is it just PMS or some other hormonal condition?
NightFox
Apr 19, 01:37 PM
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
Just really basing it on my own experience - I'm the only one of my close friends/family to own an iPhone, but I can count 5 iPod Touches in that same group. Also thought their would be a lot of iPod Touches owned by children rather than iPhones.
Just really basing it on my own experience - I'm the only one of my close friends/family to own an iPhone, but I can count 5 iPod Touches in that same group. Also thought their would be a lot of iPod Touches owned by children rather than iPhones.
studiomusic
Apr 5, 11:09 PM
Already have my tickets... I was looking forward to Kevin Smith and Philip Bloom, but FCP is a welcome announcement.
Hopefully they'll give a bunch of copies of it for the Supermeet Super Raffle.
Hopefully they'll give a bunch of copies of it for the Supermeet Super Raffle.
bibbz
Jun 9, 08:15 PM
And they wont do it even though I am an authorized user of the account? And know the last 4 of the Social Security number? Because I do not want to run into problems with this when I go to pick it up.
Also, will radioshacks be opening early that day?
Correct to the even though your an authorized user. Authorized users can do anything but add or upgrade, atleaset at RS.
Again, this is if your store is following the rules. I've ran 3 stores now, and every time i take over a new one, that is something i have to address bc the old managers let them do it. Probably part of the reason they aren't there anymore, haha.
We haven't got official word on an opening time yet. I would imagine we will know at least by the time preorders start if not sooner.
Also, will radioshacks be opening early that day?
Correct to the even though your an authorized user. Authorized users can do anything but add or upgrade, atleaset at RS.
Again, this is if your store is following the rules. I've ran 3 stores now, and every time i take over a new one, that is something i have to address bc the old managers let them do it. Probably part of the reason they aren't there anymore, haha.
We haven't got official word on an opening time yet. I would imagine we will know at least by the time preorders start if not sooner.
jonharris200
Aug 5, 04:53 PM
I think that that we'll have to wait for Paris for the iMac update and new iPods.
France would be a stunning choice of location for the launch of something that's iTunes related! I'm sure that that irony hasn't escaped Jobs & Co in their product scheduling. ;)
France would be a stunning choice of location for the launch of something that's iTunes related! I'm sure that that irony hasn't escaped Jobs & Co in their product scheduling. ;)
Eidorian
Jul 15, 05:14 AM
Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.
ChickenSwartz
Jul 27, 11:49 AM
Since the WWDC is focused on developers, wouldn't it make the most sense for Apple to do all of the chip transition announcements plus the Leopard preview at WWDC...
This seems to make most sense to me. Obviously developers care about the OS. But introducing a line of "Pro" machines with the newest/best processor (maybe a new look?!?) seems intuitive at a developers conference but who knows.
I sit waiting anxiously. For me, I hope there is a new MBP with Merom by the time school starts. If they changed nothing but the processor I would be happy...it seems they have worked most of the kinks out (whine, etc.) by now.
This seems to make most sense to me. Obviously developers care about the OS. But introducing a line of "Pro" machines with the newest/best processor (maybe a new look?!?) seems intuitive at a developers conference but who knows.
I sit waiting anxiously. For me, I hope there is a new MBP with Merom by the time school starts. If they changed nothing but the processor I would be happy...it seems they have worked most of the kinks out (whine, etc.) by now.
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 :)
No comments:
Post a Comment