Jaster
Apr 3, 09:24 AM
What does the iOS scrollbar look like on pages with a black background?
.jpg "cute justin bieber pics 2011.")
Evangelion
Aug 29, 01:23 PM
The pricelist from Intel themselves (PDF). (http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/processor_price_list.pdf)
Core 2 Duo: Merom pricing.
Yonah prices in normal font, Merom in bold
1.66 GHz - $209/ $209
1.83 GHz - $241/ $241
2 GHz - $294/$294 etc. etc.
They cost the same! Intel hasn't announced any price drops yet.
you can be certain that the price-difference is there. since merom and yonah are 1:1 compatible, why would anyone use yonah istead of merom? but since the two will be sold side-by-side, yonah obviously has some benefits that merom does not have. and that benefit is most likely price.
Core 2 Duo: Merom pricing.
Yonah prices in normal font, Merom in bold
1.66 GHz - $209/ $209
1.83 GHz - $241/ $241
2 GHz - $294/$294 etc. etc.
They cost the same! Intel hasn't announced any price drops yet.
you can be certain that the price-difference is there. since merom and yonah are 1:1 compatible, why would anyone use yonah istead of merom? but since the two will be sold side-by-side, yonah obviously has some benefits that merom does not have. and that benefit is most likely price.
bigmc6000
Jul 18, 08:02 AM
I think it'd be a good idea. What most people in here seem to forget about is that there are millions of people who don't have DVD burners, much less DL DVD burners. Also, if the quality gets much more than 480p we're talking about quite a few older computers not being able to play it back very well. I think my 1.5GHz Powerbook is technically (according to apple) limited at 480p so if there's any slow down or jerkiness to get it to 720p I'm not a big fan of that.
I think rental is a good idea - I've gone to blockbuster a few times and I've even watched some films from my cable company just because I didn't feel like going to blockbuster. But if they can make the price good (1.99 or 2.99 tops) it'd still be cheaper than either of the options I just listed and it'd be whole lot easier to do it.
I like download to buy for music but I'm with a lot of people on here in that if I want to own a movie I'll just go to target the day it's released and get it for $16.
One more thing - you don't want Steve to win this round because the studios would require an absurd pricing model. Look at the universal store - 29.99 for new releases?!?! If you want the DVD just go to Walmart or Target etc and get it way below MSRP otherwise the movie companies are going to make apple do what the retails do - take a loss on every single one sold and I really don't think Steve would be down with that...
I think rental is a good idea - I've gone to blockbuster a few times and I've even watched some films from my cable company just because I didn't feel like going to blockbuster. But if they can make the price good (1.99 or 2.99 tops) it'd still be cheaper than either of the options I just listed and it'd be whole lot easier to do it.
I like download to buy for music but I'm with a lot of people on here in that if I want to own a movie I'll just go to target the day it's released and get it for $16.
One more thing - you don't want Steve to win this round because the studios would require an absurd pricing model. Look at the universal store - 29.99 for new releases?!?! If you want the DVD just go to Walmart or Target etc and get it way below MSRP otherwise the movie companies are going to make apple do what the retails do - take a loss on every single one sold and I really don't think Steve would be down with that...
Goldfinger
Aug 31, 12:12 PM
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-08-31/#5869
What about this ? :)
What about this ? :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
Bengt77
Sep 1, 01:32 PM
**THIS IS NOT A RUMOR** There will be a new iMac with Merom and probably 23". Sounds like it will be a 2.33 ghz but not sure.
Aw, man! I was sooooo ready to shell out for a new 23" iMac, might it come out. But now it's on the verge of actually doing so, I'm starting to get greatly mostly underwhelmed by the rumours. Merom? What? I want a Conroe, at least in the 23" top model. And 2,33GHz? The Conroe goes way up to 2,93GHz. I'm sure the Merom line goes higher than 2,33GHz...
Bleh... maybe I should wait for the rumoured headless iMac. Maybe that machine actually will come with a Conroe.
Aw, man! I was sooooo ready to shell out for a new 23" iMac, might it come out. But now it's on the verge of actually doing so, I'm starting to get greatly mostly underwhelmed by the rumours. Merom? What? I want a Conroe, at least in the 23" top model. And 2,33GHz? The Conroe goes way up to 2,93GHz. I'm sure the Merom line goes higher than 2,33GHz...
Bleh... maybe I should wait for the rumoured headless iMac. Maybe that machine actually will come with a Conroe.
SockRolid
Jun 22, 01:17 PM
From Wikipedia on "touch screens" -
'The proposition is that human arm held in an unsupported horizontal position rapidly becomes fatigued and painful, the so-called "gorilla arm". It is often cited as a prima facie example of what not to do in ergonomics.'
It doesn't really matter whether a touch-screen iMac runs Mac OS X or iOS. It will be uncomfortable to use for more than a few minutes. Unless the screen is more horizontal than vertical. And just look how well that worked out for Microsoft Surface (aka Big-Ass Table.)
So I'm not sure exactly how beneficial a touch-screen iMac would be for Apple or its developers or its users. If it runs iOS, would there be yet another class of apps in the App Store? For full-screen iMac apps? And if it runs Mac OS X, wouldn't it be better to simply replace the Magic Mouse with the Magic Trackpad? (And keep the non-touch screen?)
If anything, I see a convergence of the user experience of Apple's MacBooks and desktop Macs. The keyboards are already virtually identical. Maybe the Magic Mouse was just an interim step toward the Magic Trackpad...
'The proposition is that human arm held in an unsupported horizontal position rapidly becomes fatigued and painful, the so-called "gorilla arm". It is often cited as a prima facie example of what not to do in ergonomics.'
It doesn't really matter whether a touch-screen iMac runs Mac OS X or iOS. It will be uncomfortable to use for more than a few minutes. Unless the screen is more horizontal than vertical. And just look how well that worked out for Microsoft Surface (aka Big-Ass Table.)
So I'm not sure exactly how beneficial a touch-screen iMac would be for Apple or its developers or its users. If it runs iOS, would there be yet another class of apps in the App Store? For full-screen iMac apps? And if it runs Mac OS X, wouldn't it be better to simply replace the Magic Mouse with the Magic Trackpad? (And keep the non-touch screen?)
If anything, I see a convergence of the user experience of Apple's MacBooks and desktop Macs. The keyboards are already virtually identical. Maybe the Magic Mouse was just an interim step toward the Magic Trackpad...
Old Smuggler
Mar 25, 07:05 PM
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
Or stream it to an apple TV and let it do all the work
that HDMI cable looks very cumbersome
Or stream it to an apple TV and let it do all the work
that HDMI cable looks very cumbersome
Krafty
Nov 26, 12:14 PM
For my Mac Mini: Seagate Momentus 7200.4 ST9500420AS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache 2.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Internal Notebook Hard Drive -Bare Drive
http://lulzimg.com/i9/c8073280.jpg
http://lulzimg.com/i9/c8073280.jpg
WhySoSerious
May 3, 10:36 AM
I'm all for merging the two OS's together....but do we really need to hype a feature like this on the main page or even in the keynote presentation in June? Seriously, it's just an alternate method to delete an app....BIG FREAKING DEAL.
Guess I had/have higher expectations than most when it comes to Lion/iOS5...
Guess I had/have higher expectations than most when it comes to Lion/iOS5...
xlii
Apr 20, 02:35 PM
Can you even buy a car today (in the USA) that has the following:
manual transmission
manual steering
manual brakes
wind em up yourself windows
Sure, I understand it has to have the emission controls on it but if I could get a car without all the electronic stuff on it that tries to disconnect me from the feel of the road.
manual transmission
manual steering
manual brakes
wind em up yourself windows
Sure, I understand it has to have the emission controls on it but if I could get a car without all the electronic stuff on it that tries to disconnect me from the feel of the road.
craigdawg
Mar 20, 07:51 PM
yes, this is true. but apple is not in the business to sell more computers. apple is in the business to turn profits.
tiffany's would sell more diamond rings if they cut the price in half.
BMW would sell more cars if they cut the price by 30%.
...but so what?
Exactly. Apple will stay in business as long as it's profitable; it's that simple.
It doesn't bother me that Apple has low single-digit marketshare and it doesn't necessarily bother Apple as long as they continue to make money.
And I don't know if a $500 - $600 loss leader Mac would guarantee an increase in desktop marketshare. (This is different to me than the loss leader that ITMS is). The only effect it would have would be to decrease profits.
tiffany's would sell more diamond rings if they cut the price in half.
BMW would sell more cars if they cut the price by 30%.
...but so what?
Exactly. Apple will stay in business as long as it's profitable; it's that simple.
It doesn't bother me that Apple has low single-digit marketshare and it doesn't necessarily bother Apple as long as they continue to make money.
And I don't know if a $500 - $600 loss leader Mac would guarantee an increase in desktop marketshare. (This is different to me than the loss leader that ITMS is). The only effect it would have would be to decrease profits.
Counter
Nov 18, 09:29 AM
iTunes saw much less improvements?
Christ.
iTunes runs perfectly well on a G4 400mhz.
8-Cores ain't for anything remotely normal, let alone listening to music.
Christ.
iTunes runs perfectly well on a G4 400mhz.
8-Cores ain't for anything remotely normal, let alone listening to music.
rdowns
Mar 19, 05:50 PM
Haven't you heard?
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get your attributions straight old man. I didn't say that.
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get your attributions straight old man. I didn't say that.
HecubusPro
Aug 29, 05:21 PM
Quite a few people on this board want Apple to simply announce the next Macbook Pro with Merom, even if it has delayed shipping. That would, however, compel students who need computers now to look elsewhere.
(1000th post - WOOT!)
I agree with you completely on this point, without having heard it put that way before. And congrats on the 1K post. :)
(1000th post - WOOT!)
I agree with you completely on this point, without having heard it put that way before. And congrats on the 1K post. :)
lordonuthin
Dec 1, 08:29 PM
And congrats on the #7 spot, you crushed me... I should reclaim it in a month or so...
Thanks and I'll be expecting you to blow past me then, in about a month :rolleyes: or so...
Thanks and I'll be expecting you to blow past me then, in about a month :rolleyes: or so...
Manic Mouse
Aug 20, 06:44 AM
But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you?
I'm getting a little confused, are you trying to say keyboards are not easy input methods? QWERTY keyboards are FULL keyboards like the ones you and I are using to type in these forums. I completely agree with you that phone/PSP-esque multi-press solutions are not good for extended use, which is why I think the MYLO is such a good example of what can be done with a "portable WiFi" device because it has a full keyboard.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
As you point out, the current iPod isn't a "pure" machine either. Apple have realised that they have to continually offer new things and more functionality to continue to sell and tempt existing customers to upgrade. As a music player my 4G iPod is more than sufficient: It has a nice enough size, decent enough battery life, 40Gb of space and music will not sound any better no matter how bigger the screen is. If the iPod is only to be a "pure" walkman then there is no reason for me to ever buy a new iPod unless it breaks, which is bad for Apple. Apple realise this, and validate my point by adding extra features to the iPod like photo and video support. Things like a web browser, IM etc are also just natural evolutions of the device.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
Actually that's exactly what's happening. TV's now are having HDD's built in, PC's are having media centre's built in. Here in the UK, with the BBC, the difference between TV and computer are being blurred. A few minutes ago I watched a TV show on this computer steamed from the BBC.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining
Well all the things I'm proposing are software, not hardware, features. So they should have minimal effect on battery life. The new iPod will have a large screen and WiFi regardless of whether it can surf the net/IM/email, and those are the battery draining features.
If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
But that is exactly what Apple are doing: When the ipod launched it was nothing more than an MP3 player yet the current iPods are evolving into the "be-all-and-end-all" device I'm suggesting: They play games, they have a calander, they show notes, they play videos, they display photos. Has Apple lost market share by offering these things? Or would they have lost market share if they had not offered them?
And precisely what other Apple product sales would a MYLO iPod cannibalise? What competing product does Apple offer?
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
Like I said in my previous post, the mobile phone market (and what Apple have done with added functionality to the iPod) shows the exact opposite trend. I'd much rather have a MYLO iPod than cart a laptop and an iPod around with me EVERYWHERE I go.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
Women are always right. Or so my mother tells me... :p
I don't believe that the next iPod will be a MYLO-esque device, but eventually it will offer all that functionality.
I'm getting a little confused, are you trying to say keyboards are not easy input methods? QWERTY keyboards are FULL keyboards like the ones you and I are using to type in these forums. I completely agree with you that phone/PSP-esque multi-press solutions are not good for extended use, which is why I think the MYLO is such a good example of what can be done with a "portable WiFi" device because it has a full keyboard.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
As you point out, the current iPod isn't a "pure" machine either. Apple have realised that they have to continually offer new things and more functionality to continue to sell and tempt existing customers to upgrade. As a music player my 4G iPod is more than sufficient: It has a nice enough size, decent enough battery life, 40Gb of space and music will not sound any better no matter how bigger the screen is. If the iPod is only to be a "pure" walkman then there is no reason for me to ever buy a new iPod unless it breaks, which is bad for Apple. Apple realise this, and validate my point by adding extra features to the iPod like photo and video support. Things like a web browser, IM etc are also just natural evolutions of the device.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
Actually that's exactly what's happening. TV's now are having HDD's built in, PC's are having media centre's built in. Here in the UK, with the BBC, the difference between TV and computer are being blurred. A few minutes ago I watched a TV show on this computer steamed from the BBC.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining
Well all the things I'm proposing are software, not hardware, features. So they should have minimal effect on battery life. The new iPod will have a large screen and WiFi regardless of whether it can surf the net/IM/email, and those are the battery draining features.
If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
But that is exactly what Apple are doing: When the ipod launched it was nothing more than an MP3 player yet the current iPods are evolving into the "be-all-and-end-all" device I'm suggesting: They play games, they have a calander, they show notes, they play videos, they display photos. Has Apple lost market share by offering these things? Or would they have lost market share if they had not offered them?
And precisely what other Apple product sales would a MYLO iPod cannibalise? What competing product does Apple offer?
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
Like I said in my previous post, the mobile phone market (and what Apple have done with added functionality to the iPod) shows the exact opposite trend. I'd much rather have a MYLO iPod than cart a laptop and an iPod around with me EVERYWHERE I go.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
Women are always right. Or so my mother tells me... :p
I don't believe that the next iPod will be a MYLO-esque device, but eventually it will offer all that functionality.
jgould
Feb 20, 04:25 PM
Ok, So I moved the Mini back to the corner where it sat before, and added my wireless trackpad and keyboard to the desk. I'm still not sure on the keyboard. it feels different than the one built into the MBP. I think it might feel mushy... I need to put something on top of my desk so that things don't slid around... The trackpad will slide as I move it as will the MBP if it's sitting on the desk surface...
Eric Lewis
Jan 13, 01:05 PM
Air = composed of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, trace gases.
So the 4 products are
Macbook NITRO
Macbook OXYO
Macbook C02
Macbook GAS
So the 4 products are
Macbook NITRO
Macbook OXYO
Macbook C02
Macbook GAS
bartzilla
May 3, 07:27 AM
I
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
Well I can tell you why I'm dubious - we know that iOS has shown that full computer paradigms don't translate well to the tablet (e.g. iOS compared to the 'full Windows' tablet experience). I'm thinking that the description of this new feature sounds very clumsy, and it may illustrate that the reverse of my first statement is true: tablet interface conventions may not translate well to a 'normal' computer environment.
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
Well I can tell you why I'm dubious - we know that iOS has shown that full computer paradigms don't translate well to the tablet (e.g. iOS compared to the 'full Windows' tablet experience). I'm thinking that the description of this new feature sounds very clumsy, and it may illustrate that the reverse of my first statement is true: tablet interface conventions may not translate well to a 'normal' computer environment.
kazmac
Jun 23, 06:44 PM
but frankly, I'm a mouse/keyboard gal and don't need to get any closer to my iMac than I already am.
I hope this isn't case because I'd hate to see the great computers that Apple produce be reduced to hybrid iMacs and other like-minded prosumer type machines. May this just remain a rumor.
While I like the Jetsons, I don't need computers like theirs.
I hope this isn't case because I'd hate to see the great computers that Apple produce be reduced to hybrid iMacs and other like-minded prosumer type machines. May this just remain a rumor.
While I like the Jetsons, I don't need computers like theirs.
twoodcc
Sep 6, 06:37 PM
i just hope the quality is good
ajiuo
Apr 9, 07:16 PM
WOW!!! iCal looks *********g UGLY... I hope they add an option to use a standard gray toolbar area... That seems so unlike apple to do something like that.
Heh.. What if they give everything that look :). I think I would switch to windows if they did that..
Heh.. What if they give everything that look :). I think I would switch to windows if they did that..
ffakr
Nov 29, 11:28 PM
http://news.com.com/Intel+completes+design+of+Penryn+chip/2100-1006_3-6139487.html
But, since Intel has stated that two dual-core dies in a package is the right way to do quad-core at 65nm, which implies that 45 nm is the right way to do quad-core per die, and two quad-cord dies in a package at 45 nm is the right way to do octo-core at 45nm - obviously we'll have a PowerBook G5 next Tuesday.
Whatever. Apple's pushed Universal apps because they are totally ready to die shrink IBM plants to .65nm and that can only mean one thing.. Power5 POWERBooks. Yes, that's "POWERBooks" not "PowerBooks".
BooYaa.
It's the master plan.. we move to a new architecture every 18 months. Apple's totally working on their own MIPS chip since the ISA went open a while back. The Developer copies of XCode now cross compile for 5 architectures but I'd have to kill you if I listed all the Instruction sets currently supported. The new build of Stuffit Expander 11 UNIVERSAL is now 427 MB. ROCK ON Obese-Binaries.
:eek:
But, since Intel has stated that two dual-core dies in a package is the right way to do quad-core at 65nm, which implies that 45 nm is the right way to do quad-core per die, and two quad-cord dies in a package at 45 nm is the right way to do octo-core at 45nm - obviously we'll have a PowerBook G5 next Tuesday.
Whatever. Apple's pushed Universal apps because they are totally ready to die shrink IBM plants to .65nm and that can only mean one thing.. Power5 POWERBooks. Yes, that's "POWERBooks" not "PowerBooks".
BooYaa.
It's the master plan.. we move to a new architecture every 18 months. Apple's totally working on their own MIPS chip since the ISA went open a while back. The Developer copies of XCode now cross compile for 5 architectures but I'd have to kill you if I listed all the Instruction sets currently supported. The new build of Stuffit Expander 11 UNIVERSAL is now 427 MB. ROCK ON Obese-Binaries.
:eek: