jackc
Aug 7, 04:32 PM
Now come on. Time machine? With a picture of outer space and stars? This looks so gimmicky.
True, it's a cool demo, but hopefully there's a simpler default interface.
True, it's a cool demo, but hopefully there's a simpler default interface.
utahnguy
Apr 10, 10:06 PM
This is kind of ironic. My brother works in the video editing field and I was just talking about this only 5 minutes ago. He was lucky enough to "NAB" a ticket (pun fully intended) literally seconds before they sold out, and he'll be there for the presentation. He was telling me about this radical new overhaul for FCP, and I thought it was kind of weird that I hadn't seen any mention of it seeing as how I check Apple rumor blogs almost daily, so I logged onto macrumors and sure enough, it was the first story listed.
I guess there's a lot of drama among the industry about Apple's refusal to release any kind of road map for FCP, not unlike their other products, and apparently a lot of people are starting to jump ship to Adobe's offerings. Everyone is pretty worried about this new overhaul because the guy who botched iMovie is the guy now in charge of FCP. I'm not into video editing, and I've never never used FCP or any product like it, but after hearing about all the drama and excitement surrounding this new overhaul I'm pretty stoked to see what happens.
My brother is a diehard Apple guy, but he, along with a lot of other people apparently, are basically giving Apple this final shot to fix a lot of FCP's limitations, or they're going to fully move over to Adobe's offering. (I can't remember the name of heir FCP equivalent, and I'm too lazy to look it up) Tuesday can't come soon enough!
I guess there's a lot of drama among the industry about Apple's refusal to release any kind of road map for FCP, not unlike their other products, and apparently a lot of people are starting to jump ship to Adobe's offerings. Everyone is pretty worried about this new overhaul because the guy who botched iMovie is the guy now in charge of FCP. I'm not into video editing, and I've never never used FCP or any product like it, but after hearing about all the drama and excitement surrounding this new overhaul I'm pretty stoked to see what happens.
My brother is a diehard Apple guy, but he, along with a lot of other people apparently, are basically giving Apple this final shot to fix a lot of FCP's limitations, or they're going to fully move over to Adobe's offering. (I can't remember the name of heir FCP equivalent, and I'm too lazy to look it up) Tuesday can't come soon enough!
alent1234
Mar 22, 01:40 PM
Is this a joke? What specs? Where are the apps, where are amazing games, where are publications and magazines? No where to be found.
Playbook will not even scratch the surface - you heart it here first.
lulz:apple:
the web is not an app
Playbook will not even scratch the surface - you heart it here first.
lulz:apple:
the web is not an app
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.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.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.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.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
Reventon
Aug 10, 10:47 AM
The Signature Edition is only available in Europe and Australia/NZ and not North America.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/111/1110501p1.html
That said, I've already pre-ordered the Collector's Edition when they announced its release. (I probably wouldn't get it anyway, I'm not to keen on spending $300 for a game when I could get a Logitech G27 for roughly the same price). I love the GT series. The graphics look AMAZING and I can't wait for November to roll around. :D
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/111/1110501p1.html
That said, I've already pre-ordered the Collector's Edition when they announced its release. (I probably wouldn't get it anyway, I'm not to keen on spending $300 for a game when I could get a Logitech G27 for roughly the same price). I love the GT series. The graphics look AMAZING and I can't wait for November to roll around. :D
gekko513
Jul 15, 01:24 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
THX1139
Sep 13, 12:42 PM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
Why do people think the computing world always revolves around them? Extra cores WILL be recognized by most 3d applications and will speed up rendering. There are many other applications for multiple core use that don't include web browseing or writing email to your grandma.
peace
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
Why do people think the computing world always revolves around them? Extra cores WILL be recognized by most 3d applications and will speed up rendering. There are many other applications for multiple core use that don't include web browseing or writing email to your grandma.
peace
ricgnzlzcr
Aug 15, 12:30 PM
Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop
Eidorian
Jul 14, 06:02 PM
oh, btw, i did some of my own investigations and found this site:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.You can get the 7xxx series in the Power Mac G5.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.You can get the 7xxx series in the Power Mac G5.
Soba
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
you can't make a statement like that. that's like saying "i hate general electric air conditioners." what the heck? all CPU's (and air conditioners) do the same thing.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
zero2dash
Sep 18, 01:44 PM
Plenty of people ran NT on their desktops.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either. :p
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either. :p
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
asphalt-proof
Aug 11, 02:45 PM
I really want Apple to make an iPhone and have it available by Christmas. I am so ready to dump my Treo. My question is, will it be MS exchange compatible (this is assuming its a PDA phone.) The work-world is addicted to Exchange and it would make sense to have it compatible. Oh well, if wishes were fishes....
jeanlain
Apr 11, 08:46 AM
No kidding!
280734
Where's Picasso when you need him? :-)
Avid image was from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw4vvr7Aq4
OMG, these drop-down menus! It burns....:eek:
280734
Where's Picasso when you need him? :-)
Avid image was from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw4vvr7Aq4
OMG, these drop-down menus! It burns....:eek:
DeVizardofOZ
Aug 27, 04:46 AM
No hard feelings indeed, but please show me numbers and facts, not anecdotal evidence of some dozens/hundreds of people (as compared to millions of purchasers). I will take your point when you do that, thanks very much. And really, to say that 25% of Apple products are lemons is to be, at very least, extremely glib.
Besides, if Apple is able to replace/fix those that have problems, there is no reason to complain whatsoever...this is what guarantees and technical support are for.
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.
Besides, if Apple is able to replace/fix those that have problems, there is no reason to complain whatsoever...this is what guarantees and technical support are for.
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.
aimbdd
Apr 7, 11:06 PM
Just like nikon pulled their d7000 from best buy? :P
Accept they were pulled for selling them early.
Not that i minded getting it 3 days early :D
Accept they were pulled for selling them early.
Not that i minded getting it 3 days early :D
michaelz
Mar 22, 09:32 PM
This seems to me to be good news in 2 ways:
1. It makes a few foolish people think twice about purchasing an iPad 2, so I can get mine a little sooner.
2. It puts the wind up Apple's behind and they work that little bit harder to get us the iPad 3 with the ultra HD display or iPad 2 Retina Christmas Special or whatever else they might call it.
The iPhone 4 display "changed everything" as Apple like to say, and the sooner they get that thing on the iPad, the better. Then my humdrum life will finally be complete.
+1
Seems the tablet competition is really between google's android, webOS and windows 7. Apple already took what it can take. Others are fighting for the leftovers.
1. It makes a few foolish people think twice about purchasing an iPad 2, so I can get mine a little sooner.
2. It puts the wind up Apple's behind and they work that little bit harder to get us the iPad 3 with the ultra HD display or iPad 2 Retina Christmas Special or whatever else they might call it.
The iPhone 4 display "changed everything" as Apple like to say, and the sooner they get that thing on the iPad, the better. Then my humdrum life will finally be complete.
+1
Seems the tablet competition is really between google's android, webOS and windows 7. Apple already took what it can take. Others are fighting for the leftovers.
daneoni
Aug 27, 03:38 PM
One reason Apple switched to Intel was because they couldn't get a G5 in a notebook, they kept saying they would do this for ages so a joke that powerbook G5's coming out Tuesday emerged. This *hilarious* joke has come back for an encore now we are all Intel chips which are quicker than the G5, especially as no-one knows exactly which Tuesday (28th August / 5th September / 12th September) the Merom MB/MBP will arrive.
It isn't the G5 part that's funny about it. The whole point of the joke is to make fun of the Rumor Article --> Wild Speculation --> Guessing the Specific Release Date cycle.
Finally people who grasp it
It isn't the G5 part that's funny about it. The whole point of the joke is to make fun of the Rumor Article --> Wild Speculation --> Guessing the Specific Release Date cycle.
Finally people who grasp it
Funkymonk
Mar 31, 10:56 PM
I have 2 friends with android, one with an HTC and one with Samsung Galaxy S.
They have different OS versions since they aren't able to update it, they get crap bugs and error in almost every software they use. I say to one of them to update to lastest version, he told me he can't because he need to do it from "root"... i don't know, but at least i was able to install WhatsApp on their phones, the only thing i care :-P Naturally they are using their device at minimum, few software and one of them neither have 3G connection. When we are at pub, they all use my iPhone for browsing and gaming (sigh) as always has been.
lol I think your friends may have some serious mental disabilities. jesus christ you're making it sound like android is unusable lol
They have different OS versions since they aren't able to update it, they get crap bugs and error in almost every software they use. I say to one of them to update to lastest version, he told me he can't because he need to do it from "root"... i don't know, but at least i was able to install WhatsApp on their phones, the only thing i care :-P Naturally they are using their device at minimum, few software and one of them neither have 3G connection. When we are at pub, they all use my iPhone for browsing and gaming (sigh) as always has been.
lol I think your friends may have some serious mental disabilities. jesus christ you're making it sound like android is unusable lol
~Shard~
Jul 15, 12:58 AM
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
I agree, it wouldn't make sense. Might as well sell a new Lamborghini with a 1.8L 4-banger... ;)
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
I agree, it wouldn't make sense. Might as well sell a new Lamborghini with a 1.8L 4-banger... ;)
BWhaler
Jul 14, 03:33 PM
I've never thought much of the relevance of its placement myself - why do you say that? Care to elaborate on why it is "REALLY stupid"?
1. Notice the power plug hole at the top? Now imagine a cord running out of it. Yup, there is a reason why Apple has put it at the bottom.
2. Top heavy.
1. Notice the power plug hole at the top? Now imagine a cord running out of it. Yup, there is a reason why Apple has put it at the bottom.
2. Top heavy.
Chrisse
Aug 5, 05:10 PM
No MacRumors IRC channel?
obeygiant
Apr 27, 10:33 PM
I lost it a long time ago. Trump is an asshat that should just shut the **** up and go back to diddling eastern european models and building casinos (is that christian right compliant I wonder?).
The truth is if Barack Obama was instead Piers Morgan or Simon Cowell and a republican candidate, there would have been an uproar if anyone had dared to ask if they were actually Americans by birth. Its racism, period. The right doesn't want a liberool n***** in the white house. That is it in the ****ing list. Anyone saying that's not what this is about is a ****ing liar.
**** the ****ing ****ers.
Obama's birth certificate's got a big ol butt.. das rite
Obama's birth certificate's got a big ol butt..
Holla!
The truth is if Barack Obama was instead Piers Morgan or Simon Cowell and a republican candidate, there would have been an uproar if anyone had dared to ask if they were actually Americans by birth. Its racism, period. The right doesn't want a liberool n***** in the white house. That is it in the ****ing list. Anyone saying that's not what this is about is a ****ing liar.
**** the ****ing ****ers.
Obama's birth certificate's got a big ol butt.. das rite
Obama's birth certificate's got a big ol butt..
Holla!
rtkane
Apr 6, 01:31 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.
As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.
iJawn108
Aug 6, 03:21 PM
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf06/
No comments:
Post a Comment