jaw04005
Nov 13, 12:48 PM
Well, I’ve dismissed most of the other complaints. But this is Rogue Amoeba. Phil Schiller needs to get involved with this immediately — completely unacceptable. They are one of the premier Mac shareware developers.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 04:08 PM
because you are beholden to the content people for how long they want that content to be streamable. See loss of Dexter on Netflix as an example (or even the rolling expiration of movies).
right and that was just as an example. if you have the option to choose your playlist in the cloud and it won't ever go away bc it's your playlist.....why pay tons of money buying physical media?
check out grooveshark......
right and that was just as an example. if you have the option to choose your playlist in the cloud and it won't ever go away bc it's your playlist.....why pay tons of money buying physical media?
check out grooveshark......
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 01:38 PM
I refuse to waste any more time arguing with someone that doesn't understand what he's talking about and thinks a niche format will rule the world in short order and that adaptors are 10 cents on the dollar for complex new high speed connectors. Good luck arguing with this guy. I'm done wasting my time.
iJohnHenry
Apr 10, 07:20 PM
I think they also have some ridiculous maternity leave like 16 months for BOTH PARENTS, shared somehow. I must say, that is a nice way to do it.
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Where the F is THAT???
We would call that absence of traffic.
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Where the F is THAT???
We would call that absence of traffic.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:52 AM
It seems that App on its own is generic, but the combination with another word to define a particular thing is not... see
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Face + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
Very good points. Trademarks like this are granted all the time. The word "App" may have been common slang among IT professionals for a while, but certainly not "App Store". Like I said before though -- whenever Apple wants to use a common term they just stick an "i" in front of it. Wouldn't "iApp Store" have made this whole thing go away? :)
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Face + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
Very good points. Trademarks like this are granted all the time. The word "App" may have been common slang among IT professionals for a while, but certainly not "App Store". Like I said before though -- whenever Apple wants to use a common term they just stick an "i" in front of it. Wouldn't "iApp Store" have made this whole thing go away? :)
MacTheSpoon
Apr 22, 11:31 AM
I'll be pretty curious to see if this improves battery life significantly for the 11" model. Hoping it does.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 11, 07:44 AM
THIS
As you correctly highlight, the significance of this isn't that it enables others to implement 3rd party Airplay clients for innocent playback... it's that it allows Airplay-based software rippers to be constructed.
Want an un-encrypted copy of that iTMS rental movie? Stream it to an airplay-ripper you've downloaded off the 'net, and it'll be re-compressed in non-DRM form for you to play back whenever you wish.
This is the biggest worry for Apple. They can't raise lawsuits against free software apps hosted outside the US in the same way they could block the selling of non-licenced hardware in the US.
Sounds like a ghetto way of saving a buck.
As you correctly highlight, the significance of this isn't that it enables others to implement 3rd party Airplay clients for innocent playback... it's that it allows Airplay-based software rippers to be constructed.
Want an un-encrypted copy of that iTMS rental movie? Stream it to an airplay-ripper you've downloaded off the 'net, and it'll be re-compressed in non-DRM form for you to play back whenever you wish.
This is the biggest worry for Apple. They can't raise lawsuits against free software apps hosted outside the US in the same way they could block the selling of non-licenced hardware in the US.
Sounds like a ghetto way of saving a buck.
colmaclean
Mar 22, 01:51 PM
I guess native HDMI input functionality will still be a no-no. I know you can do it with 3rd party adapters, but that's a croc!
DeaconGraves
Mar 23, 04:50 PM
1) If you can pull up an app about where DUI checkpoints are, recognize where one might be, and craft a proper route around the checkpoint, then you probably aren't above the legal limit. I would almost want to use this app when I am sober to avoid any obnoxious stops on the way home.
2) Gizmodo brought up a good point. What's the difference between this app and people tweeting about DUI checkpoints?
3) In connection with point #1, I'm not understanding the arguments that the app should be pulled because the app would be essentially pointless. When have apps been pulled because they are pointless?
2) Gizmodo brought up a good point. What's the difference between this app and people tweeting about DUI checkpoints?
3) In connection with point #1, I'm not understanding the arguments that the app should be pulled because the app would be essentially pointless. When have apps been pulled because they are pointless?
Machead III
Sep 4, 04:03 AM
Oh man, this just get's more and more confusing.
Now The Register are claiming there'll be Merom's not only in the MacBook Pro, but in the MacBook too in September.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/11/apple_macbook_to_get_merom/
I wish Apple'd tell us when we'll see them at least, on the 12th, but that's not going to happen :(
Now The Register are claiming there'll be Merom's not only in the MacBook Pro, but in the MacBook too in September.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/11/apple_macbook_to_get_merom/
I wish Apple'd tell us when we'll see them at least, on the 12th, but that's not going to happen :(
samiwas
Apr 18, 01:50 PM
Amazing! I totally agree, I don't mind paying higher taxes here for better services and better rights.
I know someone who works in the public sector was told to get his working hours down because he was working more than the amount he was supposed to by law in his job. Was told to get it down to 42 hours a week I think.
Guess that would never happen on your side of the pond!
Well, only because they might have to pay you overtime. If they have to pay you extra or a premium overtime wage, they will try hard to not let you get to that point. Not because they don't want you working too much, but because they don't want to have to pay you for your time.
True story: I work in exhibit installations. One time, several years ago, the install was running WAY behind schedule. My part of the job is not possible to complete until everybody else is done with theirs. Design changes were so crazy that my job turned into a nightmare. Opening day is set in stone, so
there is no pushing it back. In the end, myself and my assistant had to work seven 20-hour days in a row in order to get everything completed. When I turned in my invoice, with obvious gobs of overtime on it, it was sent back saying "We pay you a day rate. A day is 24 hours. Your rate covers however much you have to work in a day." That lasted all of about 4.3 seconds before I was screaming at someone. I finally got my overtime pay, but not without a fight. And now, it's part of the deal. Just the fact that anyone could even consider that makes me angry.
I know someone who works in the public sector was told to get his working hours down because he was working more than the amount he was supposed to by law in his job. Was told to get it down to 42 hours a week I think.
Guess that would never happen on your side of the pond!
Well, only because they might have to pay you overtime. If they have to pay you extra or a premium overtime wage, they will try hard to not let you get to that point. Not because they don't want you working too much, but because they don't want to have to pay you for your time.
True story: I work in exhibit installations. One time, several years ago, the install was running WAY behind schedule. My part of the job is not possible to complete until everybody else is done with theirs. Design changes were so crazy that my job turned into a nightmare. Opening day is set in stone, so
there is no pushing it back. In the end, myself and my assistant had to work seven 20-hour days in a row in order to get everything completed. When I turned in my invoice, with obvious gobs of overtime on it, it was sent back saying "We pay you a day rate. A day is 24 hours. Your rate covers however much you have to work in a day." That lasted all of about 4.3 seconds before I was screaming at someone. I finally got my overtime pay, but not without a fight. And now, it's part of the deal. Just the fact that anyone could even consider that makes me angry.
WestonHarvey1
Mar 23, 05:46 PM
These stops are a nuisance. I don't drink and drive. I just don't like being stopped and hassled at night for up to an hour when I just want to go home. That's what this app is good for, end of story.
fastlane1588
Aug 29, 08:36 AM
great, nothing....
Multimedia
Sep 1, 10:32 AM
I don't think Core 2 Duo is realy all that much of a big deal for Apple in the grand scheme of things. It's a small speed bump, with 64 bit as a bonus extra.I think 31% Longer Battery Life, 20% more power at same speed, 4MB L2 cache, significantly cooler (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288&type=expert&pid=1) is a very big deal.I don't believe any of this. The intel MacBook Pros just came out, and the main advantage of the 2 Duo is it's socet compatible with it's predecessor. Why screw aroud with a proven design, when there's absolutely no need. You do that sort of thing when the chipset and whatnot changes and you have to redesign the internals anyway.MBP announced January 10 shipped February. Needs redesign to add the easy access HD Bay they put in MacBook in May. Whenever Apple adds a Pro feature to a consumer system it means the next pro system will have it too.Finaly, Merom whatnot are being very much overhyped. The main tech advancements for most users came with Core Duo. iMac and mac Mini prices dropped in the UK in the summer so when Core 2 Duo gets announced you can bet they'll be back up at the release price of the respective hardware platform (iMac, Mini, PBP, etc). Thus you will get more power, but you'll pay for it so bang for buck wise I realy don't think it will make a massive difference.PC Perspectives Editor's Choice Award: (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288&type=expert&pid=1) "We can now say without a doubt that Intel's latest mobile CPU has nailed the holy grail in mobile computing - it performs faster, consumes less power, and generates less heat. What else is there to say besides that?...
Not only that, it has technology improvements under the hood like a larger level 2 cache (4MB) and 64-bit extensions to support 64-bit OSes like the upcoming Windows Vista. If you've had reservations before about getting a laptop, the Core 2 Duo should have you convinced. Intel's track record in this arena is strong, and their latest CPU just solidifies their lead."
Read these charts and tell us how it won't make a big difference again:
Not only that, it has technology improvements under the hood like a larger level 2 cache (4MB) and 64-bit extensions to support 64-bit OSes like the upcoming Windows Vista. If you've had reservations before about getting a laptop, the Core 2 Duo should have you convinced. Intel's track record in this arena is strong, and their latest CPU just solidifies their lead."
Read these charts and tell us how it won't make a big difference again:
shurcooL
Apr 22, 12:57 PM
I hope to see the backlit keyboard back also. It should be a standard MacBook feature.
I think I'll be satisfied with gaming on an Air thanks to OnLive. In fact, it's the perfect machine for it. Just plug in a wireless 360 controller (and optionally an external monitor/HDTV) and play.
I think I'll be satisfied with gaming on an Air thanks to OnLive. In fact, it's the perfect machine for it. Just plug in a wireless 360 controller (and optionally an external monitor/HDTV) and play.
andrewbecks
Apr 30, 10:58 PM
Hey everyone!
I finally converted my parents from an 8 year old PC that I built for them to an iMac...last week. Hearing the news that the new Sandy Bridge processors are due on Tuesday, what recourse do we have? Can we return the 21.5" for the new one? What sort of restocking fees, etc. would we incur?
Thanks!
Lucky for you and your parents, Apple did away with the restocking fees just a few months ago. As long as you return it within the first 14 days, you shouldn't have any problems or pay any fees.
I finally converted my parents from an 8 year old PC that I built for them to an iMac...last week. Hearing the news that the new Sandy Bridge processors are due on Tuesday, what recourse do we have? Can we return the 21.5" for the new one? What sort of restocking fees, etc. would we incur?
Thanks!
Lucky for you and your parents, Apple did away with the restocking fees just a few months ago. As long as you return it within the first 14 days, you shouldn't have any problems or pay any fees.
zweigand
Nov 9, 04:17 PM
The store is noisy, so it is hard to say. To me neither was making a sound.
My 24" is dead quiet. I haven't heard the fans spin up once. That's including multi-hour gaming sessions and Video encoding.
My 24" is dead quiet. I haven't heard the fans spin up once. That's including multi-hour gaming sessions and Video encoding.
ImageWrangler
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
The phone's look is indeed very similar.
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
Wait, people actually still listen to actual radios?
But seriously yeaaaahhhh not a huge wanted feature by the general populace.
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
Wait, people actually still listen to actual radios?
But seriously yeaaaahhhh not a huge wanted feature by the general populace.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
mobilehavoc
Mar 29, 11:40 AM
Microsoft overtaking Apple for marketshare. Hmm...sounds familiar.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:47 AM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
Michael73
Apr 25, 04:05 PM
The unibody was already a giant leap forward. How much better can Apple get?
I'm more interested in the specifications, and hardware (electronics) not so much the casing.
+1. Why I upgraded from my early 2009 15" MBP to my new 2011 15" MBP. Form was already awesome but I wanted a machine that was on par speed-wise with my 2008 MP.
Thinner, no optical...perhaps SSD only?
SSD on a per GB basis is still way too expensive. For those of us doing media work big hard drives are still needed. Now, a good solution are the current line-up of Seagate Momentus XT hybrid drives.
Oh boo hoo. No new case since 2008?
We Mac-Pro user are so very sad for you.
Amen! Although, I'm less interested in a show horse and more interested in a workhorse. For me it comes down to speed of encoding, rendering, working with large files, multi-tasking, opening/closing tons of applications and overall efficiency.
I'm more interested in the specifications, and hardware (electronics) not so much the casing.
+1. Why I upgraded from my early 2009 15" MBP to my new 2011 15" MBP. Form was already awesome but I wanted a machine that was on par speed-wise with my 2008 MP.
Thinner, no optical...perhaps SSD only?
SSD on a per GB basis is still way too expensive. For those of us doing media work big hard drives are still needed. Now, a good solution are the current line-up of Seagate Momentus XT hybrid drives.
Oh boo hoo. No new case since 2008?
We Mac-Pro user are so very sad for you.
Amen! Although, I'm less interested in a show horse and more interested in a workhorse. For me it comes down to speed of encoding, rendering, working with large files, multi-tasking, opening/closing tons of applications and overall efficiency.
TheKrillr
Sep 5, 05:59 PM
Yes I have..The only difference is I'm including the recording part.
Well, one option would be for the video airTunes, to have an input + hardware Mpeg-2 encoding and stream it back to your computer onto your hard drive.
This would be awesome, especially for rich people who can buy an xserve with xsan to store all their stuff on ;-) One tiny box in the living room, one huge fileserver in a backroom.
But yes, you'd probably need to have Front Row or some such on the front end, on the video airTunes.
Well, one option would be for the video airTunes, to have an input + hardware Mpeg-2 encoding and stream it back to your computer onto your hard drive.
This would be awesome, especially for rich people who can buy an xserve with xsan to store all their stuff on ;-) One tiny box in the living room, one huge fileserver in a backroom.
But yes, you'd probably need to have Front Row or some such on the front end, on the video airTunes.
Peace
Aug 31, 04:44 PM
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder