mikeschmeee
Apr 7, 05:25 PM
Another shot of my friends EVO that I took. This time it was a rig shot!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5599112222_3ef74173cb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschmeee/5599112222/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5599112222_3ef74173cb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschmeee/5599112222/)
FX4568
Apr 17, 07:30 PM
Yeah, to be honest the only reason why I didnt wait is because GPU is so bad in the ULVs.
I rather sacrifice 10% when I have an overkill processor rather than a 30% in the GPU which is not really that good.
I rather sacrifice 10% when I have an overkill processor rather than a 30% in the GPU which is not really that good.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 11, 02:57 PM
Looking forward to hard drives with this connector.
I bought two 2TB drives for my imovie library. I use one as a backup clone. I felt at the time I bought these that I was finally set. All movies on one drive for less than $100 (each). I see now that I will have an upgrade in a few years for speed purposes. By then perhaps 4TB or greater drives will be common and cheap.
The backup process will be a lot faster.
The other game changer with these drives will come with time machine backups. Right now the speed improvement by direct connection is not great enough to forgo the ease of wireless backups. Well if your hard drive changes 200gb content each day that might not be the case.
But when the thunderbolt drives come around, perhaps the speed advantage will be so great that people will opt for plugging their drives in directly once a day to backup rather than use wireless backups.
I bought two 2TB drives for my imovie library. I use one as a backup clone. I felt at the time I bought these that I was finally set. All movies on one drive for less than $100 (each). I see now that I will have an upgrade in a few years for speed purposes. By then perhaps 4TB or greater drives will be common and cheap.
The backup process will be a lot faster.
The other game changer with these drives will come with time machine backups. Right now the speed improvement by direct connection is not great enough to forgo the ease of wireless backups. Well if your hard drive changes 200gb content each day that might not be the case.
But when the thunderbolt drives come around, perhaps the speed advantage will be so great that people will opt for plugging their drives in directly once a day to backup rather than use wireless backups.
Le Big Mac
Oct 23, 11:28 AM
So this is true?? I suppose this isn't any different than Apple saying that you can't run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, is it?
That's what makes all the rancor about this so funny. Depending on the reading of this EULA provision, Apple's limits are still as, or more, restrictive than Microsoft's.
That's what makes all the rancor about this so funny. Depending on the reading of this EULA provision, Apple's limits are still as, or more, restrictive than Microsoft's.
more...
AndroidfoLife
Apr 23, 08:55 PM
Indeed, there have been reports saying that the return rate of the Thunderbolt is quite high due to this very issue.
I was considering going over to verizon for it but ill just stay on Tmo and get the Samsung galaxy s2
I was considering going over to verizon for it but ill just stay on Tmo and get the Samsung galaxy s2
Markleshark
Jan 28, 02:05 AM
hp mini 1030nr for $95 :D
Researching hackintoshing capabilities now
It's a good choice for Hackintoshing.
Researching hackintoshing capabilities now
It's a good choice for Hackintoshing.
more...
yeast2u
Apr 14, 07:56 AM
could be a touch panel iMac...
blackout8
Jul 28, 07:22 AM
If it has any features like Pandora or Last.fm i'll be very interested... albeit I already have those two for free... As long as the 'finding new music' feature is better than the iTunes Mini store, which is down right bad. Bring on a pandora like stream but with intergrated purchasing features, so that you can in a way try before you buy, as well as find more music.
That would work wouldn't it - i know it would get me purchasing more music online. O WAIT! DRM... nevermind ignore this whole post :rolleyes:
That would work wouldn't it - i know it would get me purchasing more music online. O WAIT! DRM... nevermind ignore this whole post :rolleyes:
more...
coolbreeze
Nov 10, 07:07 PM
1 million dollars for pr0n.
Hm.
Hm.
FloatingBones
Nov 19, 10:50 AM
Hopefully, the websites that provide their videos through a legacy Flash wrapper will soon be providing their users with a choice.
I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.
It would be better if Apple provided its users with a choice of whether they want to enable a flash plugin or not in their devices instead of screwing us all over by making so many web sites unusable
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
(although I'm sure the author of Skyfire is thrilled about that choice since it's making him rich beyond his wildest dreams all because Apple is run by an egomaniac).
I don't know what "him" you are talking about. DVC labs (http://www.skyfire.com/component/weblinks/63-press-releases/26-dvc-labs-raises-48-million-in-financing-announces-board), provider of the Skyfire app we're discussing, was founded in 2006. They have apps on a variety of handheld platforms; they have now expanded to the iOS platform.
The Skyfire app is distinct from most apps: for the App purchase price, they must also provide the video translation service. They must provide servers and purchase substantial incoming and outgoing bandwidth for the videos. Skyfire does have a lot of experience providing this kind of service on other handheld platforms; they should be able to pull it off and have a reasonable return for their investment.
Skyfire has figured out a way for users to run Flash-wapped videos without ever having to expose their handhelds to the risks of running Flash. That's a neat trick; they should be rewarded for those efforts.
Any Flash developer has the ability to cross-compile and release their Flash code as an iOS app. If there are Flash apps that do something that no third-party iOS app does, it should be trivial for those Flash developers to add their app to the App Store. They can either release those apps for free or make money on them.
What exact Flash code are you running that there is not already an iOS App that can do exactly the same job? Please be specific. If there are unique Flash apps, have you asked the developer why they don't release it as a standalone iOS app?
There. That's two more reasons why Apple's choice was a good one. If you wish to continue this discussion, please make sure to address all six. Thanks!
I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.
It would be better if Apple provided its users with a choice of whether they want to enable a flash plugin or not in their devices instead of screwing us all over by making so many web sites unusable
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
(although I'm sure the author of Skyfire is thrilled about that choice since it's making him rich beyond his wildest dreams all because Apple is run by an egomaniac).
I don't know what "him" you are talking about. DVC labs (http://www.skyfire.com/component/weblinks/63-press-releases/26-dvc-labs-raises-48-million-in-financing-announces-board), provider of the Skyfire app we're discussing, was founded in 2006. They have apps on a variety of handheld platforms; they have now expanded to the iOS platform.
The Skyfire app is distinct from most apps: for the App purchase price, they must also provide the video translation service. They must provide servers and purchase substantial incoming and outgoing bandwidth for the videos. Skyfire does have a lot of experience providing this kind of service on other handheld platforms; they should be able to pull it off and have a reasonable return for their investment.
Skyfire has figured out a way for users to run Flash-wapped videos without ever having to expose their handhelds to the risks of running Flash. That's a neat trick; they should be rewarded for those efforts.
Any Flash developer has the ability to cross-compile and release their Flash code as an iOS app. If there are Flash apps that do something that no third-party iOS app does, it should be trivial for those Flash developers to add their app to the App Store. They can either release those apps for free or make money on them.
What exact Flash code are you running that there is not already an iOS App that can do exactly the same job? Please be specific. If there are unique Flash apps, have you asked the developer why they don't release it as a standalone iOS app?
There. That's two more reasons why Apple's choice was a good one. If you wish to continue this discussion, please make sure to address all six. Thanks!
more...
ucfgrad93
Feb 28, 01:48 PM
It is sad, but he is just having a total mental meltdown. He is clearly delusional if he believes any of the crap he has been spewing lately.
Rowbear
Apr 11, 06:00 PM
The Duddon Valley, this afternoon...
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6042/daleend.jpg
Congrats on this very nice composition. The white house stands out so much and draws the eyes, helped by the little road leading to it. Well done :)
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6042/daleend.jpg
Congrats on this very nice composition. The white house stands out so much and draws the eyes, helped by the little road leading to it. Well done :)
more...
Frisco
Apr 28, 06:47 PM
I am still holding out for my Pink iPhone.
twoodcc
Nov 24, 04:00 AM
I think they will come either this last update or the next one. As if you look at the hourly graphs for any team a huge spike existed for the last hour. This is probably stanford processing log files. It may take time for them all to be processed.
well i still haven't gotten them. but hopefully i will eventually
well i still haven't gotten them. but hopefully i will eventually
more...
andrewsd
Apr 12, 11:13 AM
Aren't we quickly getting to the point where it's all about the software?
Ok, so we know iPhone 5 will get dual core A5....big deal. It'll be nice to have the extra power, but the iPhone 4 now is no slouch.
Added RAM.....yeah, that would be nice....but not going to suddenly sell more phones because it has more RAM :p
Display won't get any better resolution-wise. Doubt they'd go with a larger screen either.
Better cameras....ok.....still, the iPhone 4 cameras are no slouch, and it's not like it will reach the quality of a nice DSLR with those tiny sensors.
Better graphics processing.....sure.....but it's not like it has to drive a 9.7" screen like the iPad.
I'd say Apple is smartly switching into software mode. Kick ass with iOS5, revamp notifications, make some much needed overhauls to the system, and optimize performance for todays devices (iPhone 4, iPad & iPad 2).
Apple is going to stay ahead with software. That's the way Apple is and always has been.
-Kevin
I agree with everything there but the only thing is I was planning on waiting to the iPhone 6 to upgrade from my iP4 but if they are going to stray away from their usual upgrade policies then I'll probably be upgrading in September.
Wonder how AT&T and Verizon feel about them switching from their normal cycle.
Ok, so we know iPhone 5 will get dual core A5....big deal. It'll be nice to have the extra power, but the iPhone 4 now is no slouch.
Added RAM.....yeah, that would be nice....but not going to suddenly sell more phones because it has more RAM :p
Display won't get any better resolution-wise. Doubt they'd go with a larger screen either.
Better cameras....ok.....still, the iPhone 4 cameras are no slouch, and it's not like it will reach the quality of a nice DSLR with those tiny sensors.
Better graphics processing.....sure.....but it's not like it has to drive a 9.7" screen like the iPad.
I'd say Apple is smartly switching into software mode. Kick ass with iOS5, revamp notifications, make some much needed overhauls to the system, and optimize performance for todays devices (iPhone 4, iPad & iPad 2).
Apple is going to stay ahead with software. That's the way Apple is and always has been.
-Kevin
I agree with everything there but the only thing is I was planning on waiting to the iPhone 6 to upgrade from my iP4 but if they are going to stray away from their usual upgrade policies then I'll probably be upgrading in September.
Wonder how AT&T and Verizon feel about them switching from their normal cycle.
Beaverman3001
Apr 21, 10:12 AM
If you're alluding to the theory that Apple took it out to 'differentiate' it from the macbook pro's, I still don't get that concept.
I mean, if you want to differentiate your higher end products from the lower end ones, you ADD features to the higher end one. You DON'T remove features that were once standard for years on the lower end machine.
***It's like if Ford all the sudden removed air conditioning on all but their high end cars - saying that's a 'luxary' feature for their high end vehicles. We'd ALL cry BULL.....!!! Same thing has happened with the MBA.
Or Apple realized most people don't need a backlit keyboard? I honestly don't see a need for one, and I'm guessing most users don't need it. So it was probably a easy option to axe for either space or battery life. Don't expect it to return.
I mean, if you want to differentiate your higher end products from the lower end ones, you ADD features to the higher end one. You DON'T remove features that were once standard for years on the lower end machine.
***It's like if Ford all the sudden removed air conditioning on all but their high end cars - saying that's a 'luxary' feature for their high end vehicles. We'd ALL cry BULL.....!!! Same thing has happened with the MBA.
Or Apple realized most people don't need a backlit keyboard? I honestly don't see a need for one, and I'm guessing most users don't need it. So it was probably a easy option to axe for either space or battery life. Don't expect it to return.
more...
emotion
Jul 25, 10:23 AM
This is great but I do have a question..
Since it's bluetooth and Apple says it works within 30 ft.What happens if you're in a starbucks and other people have bluetooth turned on ?
Will they be able to "hack" your Mighty Mouse?
You need to read up on how Bluetooth pairing works. The short answer is this doesn't happen. It'd be a slightly pointless protocol if the above could happen.
Since it's bluetooth and Apple says it works within 30 ft.What happens if you're in a starbucks and other people have bluetooth turned on ?
Will they be able to "hack" your Mighty Mouse?
You need to read up on how Bluetooth pairing works. The short answer is this doesn't happen. It'd be a slightly pointless protocol if the above could happen.
plarusa
Nov 7, 02:06 PM
Does anyone have an idea of what (if anything) this does that Parallels doesn't? Parallels has done a great job and is really great except for the video acceleration. If someone could figure that out and let us play XP games in OS X I would be one happy guy.
I anticipate Fusion to be better than Parallels in the following area,
Virtualization of more than one CPU
Support for more than one network card
Better USB 1.1 implementation
USB 2.0
ACPI
More robust with multiple VMs
Far better customer support.
I anticipate Fusion to be better than Parallels in the following area,
Virtualization of more than one CPU
Support for more than one network card
Better USB 1.1 implementation
USB 2.0
ACPI
More robust with multiple VMs
Far better customer support.
michaelrjohnson
Jul 21, 12:24 PM
Although Apple is behind Gateway in market share, Apple's earnings (not revenue, earnings) last quarter (not year, quarter) is pretty close to Gateway's market capitalization!
They're behind Gateway in number of units shipped. Gateway produces and ships more units than Apple.
They're behind Gateway in number of units shipped. Gateway produces and ships more units than Apple.
Plutonius
Apr 17, 11:04 PM
I really don't know how I missed him in the list. I swear, I did read it. :eek:
But then again, nies hasn't signed up yet.
But then again, nies hasn't signed up yet.
Michael Scrip
May 4, 08:49 PM
It's not about you, point is "market share is very important" to Apple. Saying market share is not a goal is just wrong.
So what is Apple gonna do?
The Android monster is out of control... there are 50+ Android phones out there.
Apple only has 5 phones. Apple sells every phone they make... yet other platforms sell more. It's not a bad thing, bro... I'm on your side :)
I'm sure Apple would love for Mac market share to be higher too... but I think they realized long ago that that's quite a challenge. Yet, the Mac is still kickin' stronger than ever.
At the end of the day... is more market share better? Or more profit?
The only reason Android has so much market share is because Google will license it to anyone.
However... Apple is the only company who makes the iPhone. But they're doing phenomenally well. Check their latest earnings report.
So what is Apple gonna do?
The Android monster is out of control... there are 50+ Android phones out there.
Apple only has 5 phones. Apple sells every phone they make... yet other platforms sell more. It's not a bad thing, bro... I'm on your side :)
I'm sure Apple would love for Mac market share to be higher too... but I think they realized long ago that that's quite a challenge. Yet, the Mac is still kickin' stronger than ever.
At the end of the day... is more market share better? Or more profit?
The only reason Android has so much market share is because Google will license it to anyone.
However... Apple is the only company who makes the iPhone. But they're doing phenomenally well. Check their latest earnings report.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 29, 08:22 PM
1. Professional conferences cost that much.
2. Apple sends 1000 of their engineers that you can talk with. Who is Google sending? How accessible are they?
3. WWDC is more days.
Number 2 above is one of the reasons that it would be difficult to move to a larger venue. It might accommodate more people, but the real value is getting to talk with Apple engineers and ask questions. If they made the venue larger, your chances of getting to talk with them becomes slim. It's a tough problem to solve.
It is Apple. Number 2 is not the reason. Chances are moving it to another venue would cost more money which means less profit.
Google is more than likely just trying to cover cost. Apple is going to try to make a profit.
2. Apple sends 1000 of their engineers that you can talk with. Who is Google sending? How accessible are they?
3. WWDC is more days.
Number 2 above is one of the reasons that it would be difficult to move to a larger venue. It might accommodate more people, but the real value is getting to talk with Apple engineers and ask questions. If they made the venue larger, your chances of getting to talk with them becomes slim. It's a tough problem to solve.
It is Apple. Number 2 is not the reason. Chances are moving it to another venue would cost more money which means less profit.
Google is more than likely just trying to cover cost. Apple is going to try to make a profit.
kirk26
Apr 14, 09:02 AM
Granted all of the issues everyone has had with the iPhone 4 over the past year (death grip/Antennagate, etc), I doubt that colour is going to be the least of their concerns.
At this point, waiting another 3 - 5 months for an iPhone 5 would be more prudent than being locked into something so soon before a new device comes out.
BL.
I'm glad I wasn't part of that "everyone" group. Not one issue here.
At this point, waiting another 3 - 5 months for an iPhone 5 would be more prudent than being locked into something so soon before a new device comes out.
BL.
I'm glad I wasn't part of that "everyone" group. Not one issue here.
Darrin Bell
Jul 13, 01:31 AM
I hope microsoft has the name 'iBox' trademarked.. wouldn't want apple to ever make an iBox...I know that's facetious, but I agree. I'd rather avoid brand confusion. I still remember having a hard time convincing an elderly friend that her piece of crap computer was not an Apple iMac, it was an eMachine.
No comments:
Post a Comment