berkleeboy210
Sep 12, 09:23 AM
OK, Now i'm really ticked off.... - Had about $300 in unauthorized charges to my debit, this morning. so now I have no Debit card to buy anything Apple Related today with :mad:
Which Means, they WILL release the True Video iPod, and the iPhone.
Damn Scammers ruin our lives.
Which Means, they WILL release the True Video iPod, and the iPhone.
Damn Scammers ruin our lives.
ezekielrage_99
Jan 10, 06:30 PM
I live in Australia and am on the Next G network and, to be honest, it's very disappointing. Coverage drops in and out even in very built up areas. I can't comment very much about the internet because I try to avoid using it as much as I can due to the insane amount of money Telstra charges.
Hopefully Telstra introduce this at a reasonable price. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was between $600 - $700.
It's Telstra they wont place a reasonable pricing structure, plus their NextG network sucks. As I said before I want an iPhone but I wont buy if it's with Telstra.
Hopefully Telstra introduce this at a reasonable price. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was between $600 - $700.
It's Telstra they wont place a reasonable pricing structure, plus their NextG network sucks. As I said before I want an iPhone but I wont buy if it's with Telstra.
MBHockey
Jan 9, 02:08 PM
Stupid news ticker gave it away. That's busch league.:(
islesguy81
Mar 25, 12:23 AM
Happy Birthday!:apple::D
BongoBanger
Apr 11, 03:18 AM
It was funny. Stop crying.
jav6454
Dec 10, 10:12 AM
well i got a new computer case and new cpu cooler last weekend, and today is the day i take one of my systems all the way down and build it back up.
the case is a Cooler Master 922 HAF. it was on sale for $89. the cpu cooler is a silenx extreme silent cpu cooler effizio. wish me luck! :cool:
Ohhh, nice. 922s are nice for medium sized builds...
the case is a Cooler Master 922 HAF. it was on sale for $89. the cpu cooler is a silenx extreme silent cpu cooler effizio. wish me luck! :cool:
Ohhh, nice. 922s are nice for medium sized builds...
Rt&Dzine
Mar 4, 01:27 PM
What does scare me though is Glenn Beck, who is so smooth that he does craft his message to try and include everybody. I would assume Beck's the type of guy that is great at not offending when talking to him in person. There are union members, people taking benefits from liberal government, yet still seem to find common ground with the GOP. They listen too much to Beck. He's a real snake water salesman and can convince somebody of something that is an illusion.
I'm not sure if this is true. According to investigative reporter Alexander Zaitchik's biography of Beck, he's not a very likable person. He went into the project thinking Beck would be sort of like Limbaugh, who even some liberals like when he's not doing his schtick.
I'm not sure if this is true. According to investigative reporter Alexander Zaitchik's biography of Beck, he's not a very likable person. He went into the project thinking Beck would be sort of like Limbaugh, who even some liberals like when he's not doing his schtick.
takao
Sep 8, 01:27 PM
I've passed by Lawyers, Doctors, even a Judge (I know because as a youth I got schooled by her) listening to Kanye West, LL Cool J, Queen Latifah. Why? Because it gives them a motivative sense of power, a sense of "I'm above the rest" that most other genre's of music doesnt provide. Rock N Roll comes really close, but from what I've heard, I cannot pick 10 artists/groups in all their albums that brings it like Rap/Hip-Hop.
luckily not all rap/hip hop (especially the non US ones) gives this sense of "i'm above the rest" .. since they are nowhere as good as the funny,more language acrobatic ones IMHO
but i'm 22 and not 15 and didn't grew up in the gettho or something
(thankfully my younger brother(13) jumped straight to rammstein ;) )
luckily not all rap/hip hop (especially the non US ones) gives this sense of "i'm above the rest" .. since they are nowhere as good as the funny,more language acrobatic ones IMHO
but i'm 22 and not 15 and didn't grew up in the gettho or something
(thankfully my younger brother(13) jumped straight to rammstein ;) )
kdarling
May 2, 06:10 PM
all I am saying is that it is far more likely that this is a bug than intentional.
+1
I am sure that if I asked anybody today if they thought that file size was too large, they would definitely use their 20/20 hindsight to say "of course it is". I would.
Exactly.
Of course, the right thing to do would've been to take some field trips and/or gather sample data over a week's commute. At least take some time to do some serious thinking about the size.
Unfortunately, Apple says they like to operate "like a startup", shuffling engineers from one project to another. That usually doesn't lead to well debugged software, because there isn't continuous daily code ownership nor time to experiment.
(We're seeing the results of this "startup" mode over and over again, from those incorrect status bar signal levels, to not testing the antenna without a case, to all the Daylight Savings bugs. It's like development code is being left in all over the place. It's not just Apple, either. Such is life these days even in big corporations. They're too cheap to hire enough people.)
So a programmer in such a crunch position probably picked a number out of thin air. Perhaps they turned to a coworker and asked, "How big should I make this cache? A megabyte? Less?" and they answered " Better too much cache than too little. Go for it, make it two megabytes just in case."
Happens all the time in real life. When there's so much code to do and worry about, a person has to pick their time focus, and this one must've seemed inconsequential. As you said, hindsight is easy.
+1
I am sure that if I asked anybody today if they thought that file size was too large, they would definitely use their 20/20 hindsight to say "of course it is". I would.
Exactly.
Of course, the right thing to do would've been to take some field trips and/or gather sample data over a week's commute. At least take some time to do some serious thinking about the size.
Unfortunately, Apple says they like to operate "like a startup", shuffling engineers from one project to another. That usually doesn't lead to well debugged software, because there isn't continuous daily code ownership nor time to experiment.
(We're seeing the results of this "startup" mode over and over again, from those incorrect status bar signal levels, to not testing the antenna without a case, to all the Daylight Savings bugs. It's like development code is being left in all over the place. It's not just Apple, either. Such is life these days even in big corporations. They're too cheap to hire enough people.)
So a programmer in such a crunch position probably picked a number out of thin air. Perhaps they turned to a coworker and asked, "How big should I make this cache? A megabyte? Less?" and they answered " Better too much cache than too little. Go for it, make it two megabytes just in case."
Happens all the time in real life. When there's so much code to do and worry about, a person has to pick their time focus, and this one must've seemed inconsequential. As you said, hindsight is easy.
slffl
Jan 5, 04:35 PM
This is a great idea for those that would like this option. MR rocks as always!
Me though, I prefer the frequent frantic checks to the site as I try to get all my 'real work' done at the office.
One year everyone was going out to lunch and I lied and said I had too much work to do...just so I could eat at my desk and get all the late-breaking news. My co-workers would think I was weird if I said why I really wasn't going...
Yes, I'm a geek. :p
LOL, so I'm not the only one. Every apple event I get a nice latte and bagel sandwich and eat at my desk too. Macworld has replaced christmas for me :)
Me though, I prefer the frequent frantic checks to the site as I try to get all my 'real work' done at the office.
One year everyone was going out to lunch and I lied and said I had too much work to do...just so I could eat at my desk and get all the late-breaking news. My co-workers would think I was weird if I said why I really wasn't going...
Yes, I'm a geek. :p
LOL, so I'm not the only one. Every apple event I get a nice latte and bagel sandwich and eat at my desk too. Macworld has replaced christmas for me :)
mmcc
Mar 29, 08:46 AM
Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
Yes, but you can't have it both ways. A successful Mac App Store from your perspective means more Apple customers use it to find apps. In my experience to date, this means those other "outlets" become less and less profitable. Marketing is a numbers game and a major disruption like the Mac App Store can quickly shift those numbers to the negative. In my case it is no longer profitable to maintain some of those "other outlets".
Here's a specific example: Google AdWords. Before the Mac App Store opened, many customers gravitated first to Google search to find an app. I would pay for AdWords placement and if I got a click-through I could be assured that my website exclusively captured the attention. Yes, my app still had to be good enough to capture a sale but at least there were no other competitors there -- and no freebie alternatives (except for demos/trials).
The same strategy no longer works with the Mac App Store. First, the traffic in Google search is reduced as more Apple customers gravitate to the Mac App Store first. My conversions costs showed a clear trend upward as soon as the Mac App Store opened (other competitors in my app space have also dropped away from AdWords indicating similar escalating conversion costs). Furthermore, if I try to drive customers to the Mac App Store to buy, to increase my exposure therein, I incur the AdWord conversion costs, plus the 30% to Apple and a reduced price in the Mac App Store to compete in the race to the bottom. Clearly AdWords is a losing strategy in this case.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced.
That's fine if the volume was worthwhile. What I am saying is that impulse buy volume is NOT there at any price to even approach what I was making in my market space before. I've been in the #1 spot for my category and it was not a windfall.
I say again, the Mac App Store has depressed the sales volume and gross in my category for everyone. This is not a success in the sense of encouraging a vibrant and growing Mac software market. I felt that before the Mac App Store opened that the Mac software market was reaching a critical mass and that developers found it increasingly attractive. The Mac App Store has crushed that IMO and I am not sure it will return unless Apple makes huge percentage gains in the traditional PC market (and recent trends show it is leveling off).
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
How exactly would you suggest to market in the Mac App Store? I can't buy ad placement. Lowering my price to 99 cents hasn't given me exposure. I need some (ethical) ideas. :p
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
Tatuagem Space Pin Up Tattoo
Space Needle Tattoo by kreeton
Tattoo gun kraft tattoo gun
Freehand Space Tattoo by
tattoo middot; negative space
Color Tattoos. Space Arm
enough space tattoo shop
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
firestarter
Apr 22, 02:06 PM
So we need moderators for this? I thought the complaint was that there aren't enough of them. Plus I would find it difficult yo determine a legitimate -1, to one that was added for malicious reasons.
No, moderation becomes distributed amongst all members. Have a look at Slashdot - they developed the system there to manage their large number of comments.
If you gain a lot of positive ratings on your own posts, you get 'kudos' points.
Kudos score means you're invited to 'meta moderate' that is, to judge whether others are rating comments fairly or not. This removes the problem of people unfairly trying to bury or promote based on personal reasons, since meta-moderation helps reduce the weighting of trollish raters.
It seems to work well, producing a self-moderating environment where you can easily filter thread comments to quickly read the best posts.
The problem with the system MR appears to be building is that all ratings appear to have the same weight, whether coming from a respected forum member or a troll.
Possible ways to fix this might be:
- meta moderation
- preventing the frequency that you can vote up/down a certain individual
- weight votes based on some other measure of goodness
- reduce weighting based on warnings/time-outs etc.
No, moderation becomes distributed amongst all members. Have a look at Slashdot - they developed the system there to manage their large number of comments.
If you gain a lot of positive ratings on your own posts, you get 'kudos' points.
Kudos score means you're invited to 'meta moderate' that is, to judge whether others are rating comments fairly or not. This removes the problem of people unfairly trying to bury or promote based on personal reasons, since meta-moderation helps reduce the weighting of trollish raters.
It seems to work well, producing a self-moderating environment where you can easily filter thread comments to quickly read the best posts.
The problem with the system MR appears to be building is that all ratings appear to have the same weight, whether coming from a respected forum member or a troll.
Possible ways to fix this might be:
- meta moderation
- preventing the frequency that you can vote up/down a certain individual
- weight votes based on some other measure of goodness
- reduce weighting based on warnings/time-outs etc.
Platform
Oct 3, 06:43 PM
What a surprise...hehe
No one else could really do it as well anyway ;)
Leopard needs more new features...Safari, OS general improvements etc...:D
No one else could really do it as well anyway ;)
Leopard needs more new features...Safari, OS general improvements etc...:D
musser
Nov 26, 05:11 PM
Look at these numbers. Is that anything to write home about?
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:11 AM
what time is the event on in Australian ESTD ?????
3am for the four hundredth billionth time.
3am for the four hundredth billionth time.
macman2790
Nov 19, 01:22 AM
Intel and AMD are binary compatible with exception of AMD's SIMD instructions. Ever wonder why there isn't a different copy of Windows for AMD and Intel?
Let's not forget that IA32e (64bit mode on Intel) is better known as AMD64 and is used by Intel on license.
Anyone with an Intel mac is running software that would run on an Intel chip.
Let me clear something up, IA32e is what a 64 bit intel chip uses to run 32-bit operating systems and applications. You probably meant EM64T which is what gives the chip the capability to read 64-bit instructions.
Let's not forget that IA32e (64bit mode on Intel) is better known as AMD64 and is used by Intel on license.
Anyone with an Intel mac is running software that would run on an Intel chip.
Let me clear something up, IA32e is what a 64 bit intel chip uses to run 32-bit operating systems and applications. You probably meant EM64T which is what gives the chip the capability to read 64-bit instructions.
ctdonath
Oct 1, 04:12 PM
FTFY.
But England moreso than other regions. The notion has been fully internalized by the population at large.
You're just making history up. There is no allodial title to land in US law.
So what's your theory about why the American Colonists got so uppity? Yes, we do not have formal allodial title, but cultural attitude is that we do (or at least a close proximity), and insofar as we don't it's more a matter of "protection money" than "belongs to the government". Tell an American his government "owns" his property and he'll laugh at you.
There's enough space.
Not within 20 miles of 1 Infinite Loop.
But England moreso than other regions. The notion has been fully internalized by the population at large.
You're just making history up. There is no allodial title to land in US law.
So what's your theory about why the American Colonists got so uppity? Yes, we do not have formal allodial title, but cultural attitude is that we do (or at least a close proximity), and insofar as we don't it's more a matter of "protection money" than "belongs to the government". Tell an American his government "owns" his property and he'll laugh at you.
There's enough space.
Not within 20 miles of 1 Infinite Loop.
SMM
Oct 19, 08:29 PM
This is great news, and that's a lot of macs! I can't help but think part of this is a big group of people waiting to buy a PC until it comes with Vista. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but if I could wait a couple months on the purchase to avoid an imminent ~$150+ O.S. upgrade I would. :cool:
You may be right, JDOG, I just wonder how big a group that would be? I doubt if the home user crowd is effected too much. I notice that almost everyone is marketing their stuff as "Vista ready". That will probably sooth some buying anxiety from those who are even aware that there is a Vista. Is there an actual launch date for Vista yet? I remember when XP was getting close, Dell and some others were offering XP upgrade certificates. With Vista's price, I will be interested to see if they will do this again?
I had a visit from a couple Dell folks yesterday. There were some things they said which were interesting. But, there was even more to be gleaned by observation. I was going to discuss this on a new thread. If you see it, you might find it worth reading.
You may be right, JDOG, I just wonder how big a group that would be? I doubt if the home user crowd is effected too much. I notice that almost everyone is marketing their stuff as "Vista ready". That will probably sooth some buying anxiety from those who are even aware that there is a Vista. Is there an actual launch date for Vista yet? I remember when XP was getting close, Dell and some others were offering XP upgrade certificates. With Vista's price, I will be interested to see if they will do this again?
I had a visit from a couple Dell folks yesterday. There were some things they said which were interesting. But, there was even more to be gleaned by observation. I was going to discuss this on a new thread. If you see it, you might find it worth reading.
maflynn
Apr 10, 06:46 AM
As an Apple user, I'm thrilled that I'm not afflicted with the need to put down Windows in order to boost my ego.
That's the difference between an apple user and apple fanboy ;)
I use the tool that best suits my needs, up till now its been apple hardware and apple software for me but that doesn't mean it will be the case in the future.
The cost of apple computers is such that I need to be sure it actually solves a need before I plunk down a lot $$ on it, just so I can show off that cool apple logo on the back
That's the difference between an apple user and apple fanboy ;)
I use the tool that best suits my needs, up till now its been apple hardware and apple software for me but that doesn't mean it will be the case in the future.
The cost of apple computers is such that I need to be sure it actually solves a need before I plunk down a lot $$ on it, just so I can show off that cool apple logo on the back
chrisd1974
Apr 5, 04:16 PM
Maybe I'm being harsh, maybe what the world really needs is a 3 hour Zoomba infomercial app. Or an app extolling the benefits of the snuggie. And the excuse 'hey dude, I work in advertising' is not a good reason to criticise people who see this app for what it is, a pile of ****. If you work in advertising, the best thing you could do is make a note of the fact that everyone who DOESN'T work in advertising thinks this is a pile of **** and modify your advertising strategy accordingly.
It's like people at burger king reacting to the fact that everyone hates burger king by saying 'these burgers are useful to me, because I work at burger king'
It's like people at burger king reacting to the fact that everyone hates burger king by saying 'these burgers are useful to me, because I work at burger king'
drsmithy
Nov 17, 12:53 AM
2. AMD is far superior. Right now Intel is in the lead, but it's not a true lead. For the longest time, AMD had the better architecture.
"For the longest time" ? x86 CPUs did exist before the year 2000, you know.
Intel had to do something, so they went back to the P3, tweaked it a little, and added some huge caches, and gave us a CPU modeled after a 6 year old (guessing here) CPU that ran at around the same GHZ speeds, but was faster.
The P3 (which begat the Pentium M, which begat Core, which begat Core 2) was basically just a souped-up P2. A P2 was basically just a Pentium Pro with MMX and an off-die L2 cache (what Apple would later call a "backside cache").
The Pentium Pro (Intel's first totally new x86 chip design since the 386) came out in 1995. So all your fancy new x86 Macs have a direct lineage to an Intel CPU over a decade old.
Personally I think it's a credit to Intel that the PPro has scaled from a massive, hot, "slow" 150Mhz server CPU all the way through low-power dual-core laptop chips up to a top-end quad-core CPU. AMD has been through three new CPU designs in the same timeframe and only been unquestionably faster for maybe 50% of it.
"For the longest time" ? x86 CPUs did exist before the year 2000, you know.
Intel had to do something, so they went back to the P3, tweaked it a little, and added some huge caches, and gave us a CPU modeled after a 6 year old (guessing here) CPU that ran at around the same GHZ speeds, but was faster.
The P3 (which begat the Pentium M, which begat Core, which begat Core 2) was basically just a souped-up P2. A P2 was basically just a Pentium Pro with MMX and an off-die L2 cache (what Apple would later call a "backside cache").
The Pentium Pro (Intel's first totally new x86 chip design since the 386) came out in 1995. So all your fancy new x86 Macs have a direct lineage to an Intel CPU over a decade old.
Personally I think it's a credit to Intel that the PPro has scaled from a massive, hot, "slow" 150Mhz server CPU all the way through low-power dual-core laptop chips up to a top-end quad-core CPU. AMD has been through three new CPU designs in the same timeframe and only been unquestionably faster for maybe 50% of it.
dongmin
Jan 9, 09:21 AM
Mac:
-MacBook Touch = thin MacBook
-processor bump on the MBPs
iTunes/iPod/iPhone:
-iTunes 8 with movie rentals
-AppleTV 2.0
-Airport Express 2.0 with HDMI and support for movie rentals
-iPhone 1.1.3 with support for movie rentals
-preview of iPhone SDK
-MacBook Touch = thin MacBook
-processor bump on the MBPs
iTunes/iPod/iPhone:
-iTunes 8 with movie rentals
-AppleTV 2.0
-Airport Express 2.0 with HDMI and support for movie rentals
-iPhone 1.1.3 with support for movie rentals
-preview of iPhone SDK
quadrakid
Sep 12, 01:07 AM
it looks slick but really uncomfortable in the hand
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar