Jamekae
Mar 27, 01:46 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/03/26/160022-jobs_schmidt_coffee.jpg
STEVE: No hard feelings, but the prophecy said "Neither can live while the other survives."
STEVE: No hard feelings, but the prophecy said "Neither can live while the other survives."
PlipPlop
Apr 21, 06:07 PM
Yeah... a slide out Joy stick! :rolleyes:
Give me 2 of them and maybe we can talk.
Give me 2 of them and maybe we can talk.
rdsaunders
Oct 24, 08:23 AM
So whats the plan, are we all going to wear name badges or something or shall I just wave a welsh flag!, of course if I do that in London i'll probably be ambushed...
gregorsamsa
Oct 29, 05:49 PM
It's not going to happen. It would steal sales away from the MacBook Pro, and the cost would be minimal between the two.
IMO, it's by no means out of the question. After all, even the current 13.3" MacBooks will yet go through a number of significant upgrades in future. At some point, it's likely they'll have dedicated graphics. They just won't be on a par with the MBP's graphics (& other extras!).
So it's quite feasible, & it needn't affect MBP sales. Overall, it could also significantly increase the number of switchers from PCs!
IMO, it's by no means out of the question. After all, even the current 13.3" MacBooks will yet go through a number of significant upgrades in future. At some point, it's likely they'll have dedicated graphics. They just won't be on a par with the MBP's graphics (& other extras!).
So it's quite feasible, & it needn't affect MBP sales. Overall, it could also significantly increase the number of switchers from PCs!
more...
rasmasyean
May 4, 12:33 AM
Is that the same thin flexible OLED technology Sony was demonstrating at Consumer shows a year before (http://www.physorg.com/news174112703.html)?
The consumer market contains much more powerful development forces than defence procurement.
Waging wars in order to further technology is a very poor justification for killing lots of people and squandering billions in cash.
How do you know that that Sony prototype didn't come about as a result from work at UDC (funded by DARPA)?
Consumer forces made flight widespread. Military forces make flight feasible. Hitler's minions didn't invent the jet engine and solid booster to deliver packages and orbit weather sensors. Intercontental flight was made widespread after we decided to work on carring warheads across the ocean vs ppl. In 1940's who woulda funded a massive manhatten project to see if we can make it heat up some water...theoretically. The need for computer networks to survive a nuclear war now enable's us to read eachother's posts and take advantage of the consumerism on top of this web page.
Many technological advancements are so costly and far-fetched that no reasonable "business" would risk investing a lot of money in it. That's when paranoid governments pick up the tab. I don't think you understand that it's real easy to spend $499 on an iPod with tons of "Apps" on it and say...oh yah, this is like real easy to make because Chinese ppl take 50 cents worth of material and put it together. But before all this was possible, some of the smallest components in that iPhone and the most basic of all "Apps" took a "visionary" with a massivly risky budget to make one blink on some $5 million vaccuum box for the first time in history!
The consumer market contains much more powerful development forces than defence procurement.
Waging wars in order to further technology is a very poor justification for killing lots of people and squandering billions in cash.
How do you know that that Sony prototype didn't come about as a result from work at UDC (funded by DARPA)?
Consumer forces made flight widespread. Military forces make flight feasible. Hitler's minions didn't invent the jet engine and solid booster to deliver packages and orbit weather sensors. Intercontental flight was made widespread after we decided to work on carring warheads across the ocean vs ppl. In 1940's who woulda funded a massive manhatten project to see if we can make it heat up some water...theoretically. The need for computer networks to survive a nuclear war now enable's us to read eachother's posts and take advantage of the consumerism on top of this web page.
Many technological advancements are so costly and far-fetched that no reasonable "business" would risk investing a lot of money in it. That's when paranoid governments pick up the tab. I don't think you understand that it's real easy to spend $499 on an iPod with tons of "Apps" on it and say...oh yah, this is like real easy to make because Chinese ppl take 50 cents worth of material and put it together. But before all this was possible, some of the smallest components in that iPhone and the most basic of all "Apps" took a "visionary" with a massivly risky budget to make one blink on some $5 million vaccuum box for the first time in history!
DeSnousa
May 28, 06:28 AM
I have noticed that a lot of the new folders (including myself) are folding a lot of points for the team, great to see :)
I have now hit the 6k red colour for folding :cool: Need some more competition now on the lower score table :p (no point trying to chase the others ;)
I have now hit the 6k red colour for folding :cool: Need some more competition now on the lower score table :p (no point trying to chase the others ;)
more...
mrblack927
Apr 21, 04:48 PM
I think the next iPhone released would be called iPhone 5
2007 - iPhone
2008 - iPhone 3G (instead of calling it iPhone 2 they wanted to promote that it had 3G speed capabilities)
2009 - iPhone 3GS (Want to call it iPhone 3, but used 3G, add S to avoid confusion
2010 - iPhone 4 (4th version)
2011 - iPhone 5
Fair enough. Just for fun, here's what I think it will be:
2007 - iPhone
2008 - iPhone 3G (promote the 3G capabilities)
2009 - iPhone 3GS (just a spec bump, so they give it the "S" designation)
2010 - iPhone 4 (a major revamp- use "iPhone 4" as a strong name to emphasize a "new generation" for iPhone)
2011 - iPhone 4S (just a spec bump, so they give it the "S" designation)
2012 - iPhone 4G (promote the 4G capabilities)
2013 - iPhone 7 (a major revamp- use "iPhone 7" as a strong name to emphasize a "new generation" for iPhone)
... and the cycle more or less repeats ;)
2007 - iPhone
2008 - iPhone 3G (instead of calling it iPhone 2 they wanted to promote that it had 3G speed capabilities)
2009 - iPhone 3GS (Want to call it iPhone 3, but used 3G, add S to avoid confusion
2010 - iPhone 4 (4th version)
2011 - iPhone 5
Fair enough. Just for fun, here's what I think it will be:
2007 - iPhone
2008 - iPhone 3G (promote the 3G capabilities)
2009 - iPhone 3GS (just a spec bump, so they give it the "S" designation)
2010 - iPhone 4 (a major revamp- use "iPhone 4" as a strong name to emphasize a "new generation" for iPhone)
2011 - iPhone 4S (just a spec bump, so they give it the "S" designation)
2012 - iPhone 4G (promote the 4G capabilities)
2013 - iPhone 7 (a major revamp- use "iPhone 7" as a strong name to emphasize a "new generation" for iPhone)
... and the cycle more or less repeats ;)
BornAgainMac
Sep 27, 09:07 AM
I wonder if Rosetta was handicapped during the transition period so people would still purchase the remaining exciting PowerPC products.
more...
platypus63
Oct 26, 12:54 PM
Wow, I expected PPC support to drop in a few years, not a few months. Sucks for anyone with the Quad G5s. Sucks for me with my dual G5. :(
I hope this won't be a common trend.
I hope this won't be a common trend.
Stevamundo
Feb 18, 11:12 AM
This is the photo is full size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5455525432/sizes/o/in/photostream/
He does look scarily thin�
Steve Jobs has always looked �scarily thin� ever since his liver transplant.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5455525432/sizes/o/in/photostream/
He does look scarily thin�
Steve Jobs has always looked �scarily thin� ever since his liver transplant.
more...
sebastianlewis
May 31, 04:32 AM
A solution is a solution no matter whether it's the Command Line or a GUI, besides that, a lot of apps also have a CLI equivalent, Property List Editor and defaults, Disk Utility and diskutil, Automator and automator, etc. So clearly articles involving Disk Utility would also need to include diskutil, and Automator would need to include it's CLI equivalent... not quite the same for the Plist editor and defaults I guess.
Then there is something like Quicksilver, which is kind of a mix between the GUI and the Terminal, well actually I'd go so far as to say it's an interface paradigm in itself. Then there are preference pane apps which aren't full GUI apps, codecs like Perian and WMV Components which also happen to have preference panes by the way, small utilities like Jumpcut which can function in either the GUI or the CLI via the same keyboard shortcut and just extend the clipboard, so it's really hard to create an artificial distinction between them, and then there are X11 apps, and what about online apps like Google Docs? No, they're not Mac specific apps, but neither is something like OpenOffice.org, they just happen to be hosted online and work in a browser, but a solution is still a solution whether or not it's locally hosted or remote, has a GUI or uses the CLI, or has its own unique interface, uses Aqua, or uses the X Window System, or uses your browsers rendering engine.
On the other hand, if we were to use subcategories as filters, then that would just have the effect of narrowing the list instead of forcing the user to click through to another category to find what they might be looking for so we wouldn't have to create a distinction between different types of Software in the main category.
So in reality, Mac OS X is a hybrid breed and so you have to look at where the real distinction is, the Operating System provides the software for a functioning computer, Apple provides their Cocoa and Carbon developers with the HIG, and also provides a full UNIX environment that anyone can take advantage of, and also provides a powerful Rendering Engine in the OS that provides an environment for both Widgets and Web-based Apps to run in. Some people are scared of the Terminal, but the Guides are here and they can be a powerful tool for getting people more used to the idea of using the Terminal and getting the most out of their computer, or if they chose too, they can completely ignore it.
Sebastian
Clearly there are both cases where there is too much categorisation and where there is not enough. I'm in favour of general guidelines based on the number of articles, ie new subcategories should have at least x articles, and categories with more than y articles may want to be broken up - of course, there will be exceptions, so they should be only very general guidelines.
I'm open to a big change in the category organisation of the Guides, as it is clearly badly structured in some places. However, any new structure needs to be carefully designed and agreed upon, as it is a lot of work to change and very difficult to undo.
Overly-general guidelines based on the number of articles is poor structure, if it gets vastly overcrowded then new subcategories should be used very sparingly, but without subsubcategories, a user won't have to click through more than 3 times to get to the article they want from the Guides page, Top Category>Subcategory>Article, and potentially most of the time, two, Top Category>Article, or they'll just search it out which is the most likely, but that doesn't mean a decent hierarchy should be given up since it allows the user to just browse articles of interest.
Sebastian
Then there is something like Quicksilver, which is kind of a mix between the GUI and the Terminal, well actually I'd go so far as to say it's an interface paradigm in itself. Then there are preference pane apps which aren't full GUI apps, codecs like Perian and WMV Components which also happen to have preference panes by the way, small utilities like Jumpcut which can function in either the GUI or the CLI via the same keyboard shortcut and just extend the clipboard, so it's really hard to create an artificial distinction between them, and then there are X11 apps, and what about online apps like Google Docs? No, they're not Mac specific apps, but neither is something like OpenOffice.org, they just happen to be hosted online and work in a browser, but a solution is still a solution whether or not it's locally hosted or remote, has a GUI or uses the CLI, or has its own unique interface, uses Aqua, or uses the X Window System, or uses your browsers rendering engine.
On the other hand, if we were to use subcategories as filters, then that would just have the effect of narrowing the list instead of forcing the user to click through to another category to find what they might be looking for so we wouldn't have to create a distinction between different types of Software in the main category.
So in reality, Mac OS X is a hybrid breed and so you have to look at where the real distinction is, the Operating System provides the software for a functioning computer, Apple provides their Cocoa and Carbon developers with the HIG, and also provides a full UNIX environment that anyone can take advantage of, and also provides a powerful Rendering Engine in the OS that provides an environment for both Widgets and Web-based Apps to run in. Some people are scared of the Terminal, but the Guides are here and they can be a powerful tool for getting people more used to the idea of using the Terminal and getting the most out of their computer, or if they chose too, they can completely ignore it.
Sebastian
Clearly there are both cases where there is too much categorisation and where there is not enough. I'm in favour of general guidelines based on the number of articles, ie new subcategories should have at least x articles, and categories with more than y articles may want to be broken up - of course, there will be exceptions, so they should be only very general guidelines.
I'm open to a big change in the category organisation of the Guides, as it is clearly badly structured in some places. However, any new structure needs to be carefully designed and agreed upon, as it is a lot of work to change and very difficult to undo.
Overly-general guidelines based on the number of articles is poor structure, if it gets vastly overcrowded then new subcategories should be used very sparingly, but without subsubcategories, a user won't have to click through more than 3 times to get to the article they want from the Guides page, Top Category>Subcategory>Article, and potentially most of the time, two, Top Category>Article, or they'll just search it out which is the most likely, but that doesn't mean a decent hierarchy should be given up since it allows the user to just browse articles of interest.
Sebastian
bigcat318
May 24, 05:25 PM
JUst wondering...so it doesoes it work max settings on everything?
I play it with settings on a mix of High and Ultra. I have the original version of the 15" unibody, 512mb graphics.
I play it with settings on a mix of High and Ultra. I have the original version of the 15" unibody, 512mb graphics.
more...
Mac-Michael
Jun 11, 01:12 AM
Nooooooooooo.
Just when I decided to finally get my first iPhone from at&t. What's the expiration date on this rumour?
Just when I decided to finally get my first iPhone from at&t. What's the expiration date on this rumour?
Joshuarocks
Apr 8, 11:35 AM
You'll get no argument from me. I blame all of them. See my earlier post.
The real absurdity is that, by and large, the pols who got us into this are the ones we are relying on getting us out.
I say its time we overthrow the republicans and democrats and start a party which is ANTI-CORPORATIONS and is for the people and by the people.. Who's with me?
The real absurdity is that, by and large, the pols who got us into this are the ones we are relying on getting us out.
I say its time we overthrow the republicans and democrats and start a party which is ANTI-CORPORATIONS and is for the people and by the people.. Who's with me?
more...
3247
Jul 13, 04:53 AM
So can I put one of these new SDXC cards in the back and use that as my boot drive while maintaining the internal HD for data storage?
Would that be better than an SSD?No. The maximum interface speed for SD cards � that's UHS-I at 104 MB/s � is slower than most SSDs. (Well, slower than SSDs you would want to use as a boot drive.)
Would that be better than an SSD?No. The maximum interface speed for SD cards � that's UHS-I at 104 MB/s � is slower than most SSDs. (Well, slower than SSDs you would want to use as a boot drive.)
MacBandit
Sep 15, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by scem0
I dont see how anyone can say this when I can get a 2.8 GHz custom built speed-demon for 1,300 after shopping around, and I cant get **** from apple for 1,300. Well I could get something, but nothing that compares speed-wise to the pentium 4.
Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?
I dont see how anyone can say this when I can get a 2.8 GHz custom built speed-demon for 1,300 after shopping around, and I cant get **** from apple for 1,300. Well I could get something, but nothing that compares speed-wise to the pentium 4.
Does this include everything that comes standard on a Mac box?
more...
p0intblank
Sep 27, 09:10 AM
Very nice, bring on 10.4.8! :) Possible improvements in Rosetta for Intel Mac users is definitely something to look forward to.
magikpants
Oct 16, 04:16 PM
seriously, I want both.
840quadra
Nov 1, 11:29 PM
For the specific Mac models (like the oogles of PowerMac revisions), would it be wise to just link directly to AppleSpec instead of making our own? We already have [[PowerMac]] with links to [[PowerMac_G4]] which then links to [[PowerMac_specificModel]]. Maybe the links on the PowerMac_G4 page should be to the AppleSpec PDFs for those models?
What if apple takes that information down?
I would think it would be good to make our own local DB of information so we don't need to rely on others for information.
Just my .00000002
http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1127904880&type=profile
What if apple takes that information down?
I would think it would be good to make our own local DB of information so we don't need to rely on others for information.
Just my .00000002
http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=47064&dateline=1127904880&type=profile
Nym
Nov 14, 02:10 PM
LMAO!
It's not that good actually, it's sunny but cold like s*** :D
It's not that good actually, it's sunny but cold like s*** :D
cvaldes
Oct 6, 05:52 PM
It's a Shaw Wu rumor, so it must be poppycock.
Sorry, folks. Nothing here to see. Move along.
:D
Sorry, folks. Nothing here to see. Move along.
:D
ftaok
Apr 1, 02:01 PM
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?Then perhaps you'd be one of the ones that would end up paying less. However, if you think the channels you keep would remain unchanged, I think you'd be disappointed. Get ready for sitcoms, reality shows, and political pundits 24/7.
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.Just because a channel can't garner enough subscribers doesn't mean it's crap. Look at the stuff these days that get the ratings. This is what cable TV may be reduced to if forced to go ALC.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.You're right that it's irrelevant, but not because of where the money comes from. It's irrelevant because it won't happen any time soon. There's no support for ALC from any group other than consumers. The Democrats don't want ALC because it will hurt diversity in programming. The Republicans don't want ALC because they see it as interfering with a free market. The cable companies don't want ALC because it involves change and may hurt their bottom line. The networks don't want ALC because it would mean fewer channels/less profits. People who work in the TV industry don't want ALC because they may lose their jobs.
Yeah because being hard headed and refusing to change with the times has done so well for us as a country (Car Industry, housing market, manufacturing process, infrastructure improvements, etc)....I'm not saying that ALC is bad; some days, I'm on your side. I flip flop on this all the time because there are such goodsides and downsides to this. Change can be good, but there are always unintended consequences to change. In the end, it's just TV, so there's nothing earth shattering. Just good, honest debate.
BTW, this has gotten way off topic. Sorry.
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.Just because a channel can't garner enough subscribers doesn't mean it's crap. Look at the stuff these days that get the ratings. This is what cable TV may be reduced to if forced to go ALC.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.You're right that it's irrelevant, but not because of where the money comes from. It's irrelevant because it won't happen any time soon. There's no support for ALC from any group other than consumers. The Democrats don't want ALC because it will hurt diversity in programming. The Republicans don't want ALC because they see it as interfering with a free market. The cable companies don't want ALC because it involves change and may hurt their bottom line. The networks don't want ALC because it would mean fewer channels/less profits. People who work in the TV industry don't want ALC because they may lose their jobs.
Yeah because being hard headed and refusing to change with the times has done so well for us as a country (Car Industry, housing market, manufacturing process, infrastructure improvements, etc)....I'm not saying that ALC is bad; some days, I'm on your side. I flip flop on this all the time because there are such goodsides and downsides to this. Change can be good, but there are always unintended consequences to change. In the end, it's just TV, so there's nothing earth shattering. Just good, honest debate.
BTW, this has gotten way off topic. Sorry.
rovex
Apr 5, 11:21 AM
Regarding touch buttons, my post above. Regarding pressing the wrong side in the dark, although I have done that a couple of times in the past, I think they make the button concave so you can feel where it is without looking. I (personally) think that a glow in the dark button would look tacky, especially because they glow in that eery green colour. :(
When you are watching a YouTube video, I tend to forget where the home button is. Or when surfing the web for some time while in the dark.
And I don't literally mean glow in the dark like those cheap Halloween things, I'm talking about an actual light behind the capacitive square symbol which has a sensor which turns on when there is a certain level of darkness.
I can easily envisage this happening . It would look fantastic.
When you are watching a YouTube video, I tend to forget where the home button is. Or when surfing the web for some time while in the dark.
And I don't literally mean glow in the dark like those cheap Halloween things, I'm talking about an actual light behind the capacitive square symbol which has a sensor which turns on when there is a certain level of darkness.
I can easily envisage this happening . It would look fantastic.
Tomorrow
Mar 30, 08:28 PM
Found - and purchased - some for $3.48 this afternoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment