La Porta
Mar 25, 07:02 AM
I remember, I was so excited for this to arrive all day at school. I was a 17 year-old high school senior, just itching to get out of class because I knew the package would arrive that day. I had been running OS X Public Beta on my iMac DV SE and was ready for the real thing! Little did I know that, as far as I go, the "real thing" came with 10.2 on my next LCD iMac!
racebit
Nov 16, 10:17 PM
Indeed, this should be taken with the dash of salt it deserves... i.e. a tablespoon full
hmm, maybe a truckload?
hmm, maybe a truckload?
Cerender
Apr 15, 12:31 PM
looks like a rendering
That's what I was thinking looking at the film grain...
That's what I was thinking looking at the film grain...
blahblah100
Mar 28, 02:46 PM
When was the last time a standards setting, headline grabbing, everyone's gotta have it Mac application created?
1987 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard
:D
1987 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard
:D
more...
MagicBoy
Mar 24, 08:08 PM
Windows has been downhill since DOS.
Pardon? Want to try that again?
Pardon? Want to try that again?
dernhelm
Oct 4, 07:45 AM
The Mini is pretty powerful. Sorry to discount your argument, but I think that it's more than enough for people out there that aren't power users/computer nerds. Heck, my dad runs engineering software all day long on his Pentium 3 733mhz, 256MB RAM computer and doesn't feel the need to upgrade.
It being in a small case is even better for the common user. Maybe to us, a small case seems like a bad computer, but the specs are similar to MacBook specs, which seems like enough for almost all users out there.
I agree - this mid-range headless computer everyone is talking about isn't likely to happen. Apple has clearly discounted this segment as "not very interesting". I'm just guessing here, but it seems like their market research might be a little better than ours on this matter. Even if we did have several friends not buying a Mac because the mini is too small and the Mac Pro too expensive, I'm guessing Apple isn't in that market because they don't feel the niche carries enough value to produce and maintain yet another product line.
However, and I've said this before, I think Apple should build another headless machine aimed at a particular market segment: gamers. They've already shown they can build super-cool looking hardware. They've already produced systems with crazy stuff like liquid cooling. And if anyone can give Dell/Alienware and HP/Voodoo a run for their money, it's Apple.
It being in a small case is even better for the common user. Maybe to us, a small case seems like a bad computer, but the specs are similar to MacBook specs, which seems like enough for almost all users out there.
I agree - this mid-range headless computer everyone is talking about isn't likely to happen. Apple has clearly discounted this segment as "not very interesting". I'm just guessing here, but it seems like their market research might be a little better than ours on this matter. Even if we did have several friends not buying a Mac because the mini is too small and the Mac Pro too expensive, I'm guessing Apple isn't in that market because they don't feel the niche carries enough value to produce and maintain yet another product line.
However, and I've said this before, I think Apple should build another headless machine aimed at a particular market segment: gamers. They've already shown they can build super-cool looking hardware. They've already produced systems with crazy stuff like liquid cooling. And if anyone can give Dell/Alienware and HP/Voodoo a run for their money, it's Apple.
more...
Anuba
Jan 12, 05:44 PM
Someone asked you what you were hoping for, and that's it? You call it not revolutionary, but you can't give a single idea of what you think revolutionary is? :confused:
Ideally, a revolutionary product is a completely new concept, something nobody thought of before. If all the iPhone mockups out there had missed the mark, the iPhone would be revolutionary, but there were quite a few that were based on the idea of a huge display and no keys. The iPhone is a mishmash of existing concepts that have been refined, polished and rolled into one. While the multi-touch screen is a milestone of sorts, other aspects of the iPhone are very yesterday. The modest memory, for one, and for another the absence of 3G which is somewhat of a shocker - 3G has been a staple of top-of-the-line phones for years now.
Did I miss the part of the keynote where Steve said this was aimed at the business market? :eek:
If not the business market, then who? It can't be kids, as it has no games, and allegedly no support for custom ringtones. It can't be business users, since they'll want Outlook or Lotus Notes sync, and possibly a navigator, and they'll most definitely not want to use frickin' iTunes to sync up. Which leaves, I dunno... Mac enthusiasts and 30-somethings who are hoping for 15 minutes of fame by the watercooler? He did say his goal was 10 million units.
Ideally, a revolutionary product is a completely new concept, something nobody thought of before. If all the iPhone mockups out there had missed the mark, the iPhone would be revolutionary, but there were quite a few that were based on the idea of a huge display and no keys. The iPhone is a mishmash of existing concepts that have been refined, polished and rolled into one. While the multi-touch screen is a milestone of sorts, other aspects of the iPhone are very yesterday. The modest memory, for one, and for another the absence of 3G which is somewhat of a shocker - 3G has been a staple of top-of-the-line phones for years now.
Did I miss the part of the keynote where Steve said this was aimed at the business market? :eek:
If not the business market, then who? It can't be kids, as it has no games, and allegedly no support for custom ringtones. It can't be business users, since they'll want Outlook or Lotus Notes sync, and possibly a navigator, and they'll most definitely not want to use frickin' iTunes to sync up. Which leaves, I dunno... Mac enthusiasts and 30-somethings who are hoping for 15 minutes of fame by the watercooler? He did say his goal was 10 million units.
peas
Sep 28, 12:56 PM
sweet, guess i need to read between the lines more.
i just noticed on the box cover it had a monster sticker on it that said
NO UPDATES ON ACADEMIC VERSIONS so i figured this .5 update wouldnt be allowed.
thanks for the heads up
i just noticed on the box cover it had a monster sticker on it that said
NO UPDATES ON ACADEMIC VERSIONS so i figured this .5 update wouldnt be allowed.
thanks for the heads up
more...
Beric
Oct 6, 03:34 PM
Verizon has the best service, AT&T has the best phones.
You win and lose either way.
You win and lose either way.
Macky-Mac
May 4, 03:46 PM
No, we've had similar discussions before regarding a physician's willingness to treat someone due to their own personal religious beliefs, etc. and their response was quite different... the vast majority in that case believed that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not allow doctors to ask such questions or refuse to perform procedures they found philosophically reprehensible such as abortions... as if each physician in the country is some sort of robot working at the service of the government no longer allowed to think or reason on their own. But, now that it's about guns, they take a different approach. It's a very distinct hypocrisy.
nope; you've simply mixed up the issues and the responses
nope; you've simply mixed up the issues and the responses
more...
Mr. Zorg
Jul 21, 11:22 AM
vocal majority
I think, perhaps, you meant to say "vocal MINORITY"?
I think, perhaps, you meant to say "vocal MINORITY"?
seedster2
Apr 9, 03:26 PM
280513
more...
aiqw9182
Mar 28, 03:37 PM
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
Not even going to bother reading this because I was NEVER discussing or defending Apple for only picking apps in the App Store. Get your facts straight before you decide to write a book on an internet forum over a discussion that went on for two replies.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
Not even going to bother reading this because I was NEVER discussing or defending Apple for only picking apps in the App Store. Get your facts straight before you decide to write a book on an internet forum over a discussion that went on for two replies.
spencers
Apr 10, 02:40 PM
http://img.runningwarehouse.com/big/SFT5M1-2.jpg
Nice, Fastwitch? Thought about trying those at some point.
Samsung PN50C8000 x3.
Continuing to build my ultimate theater room - just need to paint the in wall speakers that were installed.
Sweet!
Nice, Fastwitch? Thought about trying those at some point.
Samsung PN50C8000 x3.
Continuing to build my ultimate theater room - just need to paint the in wall speakers that were installed.
Sweet!
more...
Patrick J
Apr 29, 05:51 PM
Naah. You could click on them like normal and it would slide the button over to where you clicked - or you could slide it manually. It looked slick and operated either way.
A slider like that only makes sense on a touch interface, where you would physically move it. A user would drag it along with a finger. Very "organic".
Animation for sake of animation is pointless. With a mouse, it is counter intuitive, when all users are used to "pushing" or "depressing" the button in.
A slider like that only makes sense on a touch interface, where you would physically move it. A user would drag it along with a finger. Very "organic".
Animation for sake of animation is pointless. With a mouse, it is counter intuitive, when all users are used to "pushing" or "depressing" the button in.
saxon48
Mar 24, 03:03 PM
Happy birthday! Here's to another 10 years (hopefully dominated by OS XI, or equivalent) :D
more...
arn
Apr 27, 03:58 AM
Perhaps a little quick on the draw here but it isn't working for me. The boxes have gone but the actual voting buttons still take me back to the forum index page.
I have cleared my cache and logged out and back in again.
What version of IE are you on?
arn
I have cleared my cache and logged out and back in again.
What version of IE are you on?
arn
Macnoviz
Oct 3, 01:48 PM
In other news, the pope today announced that he is Catholic. He also confesses to **** in the woods.
No really, I expect quite a number of those things, but then at the end one more thing that nobody expects, not a phone, not another iPod, but something radically different. Just like the games at the last Stevenote, only bigger, something that will make you go Huh? :eek: Wtf ? :confused: Wow ! :) Now where's that credit card? :D
No really, I expect quite a number of those things, but then at the end one more thing that nobody expects, not a phone, not another iPod, but something radically different. Just like the games at the last Stevenote, only bigger, something that will make you go Huh? :eek: Wtf ? :confused: Wow ! :) Now where's that credit card? :D
ozontheroad
Nov 16, 10:45 PM
I threw up in my mouth a little bit� for a month with the Intel switch.
I may have to hospitalized if this actually happens.
You can't TM that... I remember Jack saying that on Will&Grace like 3 seasons ago. :D
also used in Dodgeball
By the way I hope this rumor isn't true.
I may have to hospitalized if this actually happens.
You can't TM that... I remember Jack saying that on Will&Grace like 3 seasons ago. :D
also used in Dodgeball
By the way I hope this rumor isn't true.
lordonuthin
Apr 28, 10:23 PM
well, 2 systems would be better than one, if you can afford it.
let's see
dual cpu:
- 2 x i7 980x - $2,000
- motherboard - $600
- 12 GB of RAM - about $300
- powersupply - about $120
total - about $3,020
single cpu:
- i7 980x - $1,000
- motherboard - $200
- 6 GB of RAM - about $150
- powersupply - about $80
total - about $1430 x 2 = $2,860
so 2 systems might actually be cheaper. i didn't put a case, since with the big $600 motherboard, it won't fit in most cases. and i assume you already have gpus
I already have 2 4u cases and 650 psu's for them, no gpu's right now I just ssh into them. Would a 650 psu be enough power for a single GTX480 on one of these? I have 1200 watt psu's running the 2 machines with 3 gpu's each. I could swap out one of the GT260's for the 480 and put it (the 260) on the new board; when I have the change for the GTX480 that is.
This of course will delay the purchase of a new Mac Pro somewhat, maybe... but I couldn't wait any longer for the Mac Pro's...:o
Our team output is up again to just under 2 mil pts for the last week.
let's see
dual cpu:
- 2 x i7 980x - $2,000
- motherboard - $600
- 12 GB of RAM - about $300
- powersupply - about $120
total - about $3,020
single cpu:
- i7 980x - $1,000
- motherboard - $200
- 6 GB of RAM - about $150
- powersupply - about $80
total - about $1430 x 2 = $2,860
so 2 systems might actually be cheaper. i didn't put a case, since with the big $600 motherboard, it won't fit in most cases. and i assume you already have gpus
I already have 2 4u cases and 650 psu's for them, no gpu's right now I just ssh into them. Would a 650 psu be enough power for a single GTX480 on one of these? I have 1200 watt psu's running the 2 machines with 3 gpu's each. I could swap out one of the GT260's for the 480 and put it (the 260) on the new board; when I have the change for the GTX480 that is.
This of course will delay the purchase of a new Mac Pro somewhat, maybe... but I couldn't wait any longer for the Mac Pro's...:o
Our team output is up again to just under 2 mil pts for the last week.
ct2k7
Mar 11, 04:38 PM
Transition.
The industry is undergoing a massive paradigm-shift, thanks to Apple.
I am not seeing a transition in the crucial paradigm. They're not slowing down on the desktop and notebook front. Sure, we might be moving towards a tablet computing form factor, but that already exists.
The industry is undergoing a massive paradigm-shift, thanks to Apple.
I am not seeing a transition in the crucial paradigm. They're not slowing down on the desktop and notebook front. Sure, we might be moving towards a tablet computing form factor, but that already exists.
mcorf
Apr 10, 01:08 PM
I went to pick up my ipad yesterday(which I reordered) and asked if they had any more for sale. They said they had a lot of the verizon 3G(which I didn't want anyway), but were not allowed to sell them. I asked why and they said because of what happened at some of there other stores, but wouldn't tell me what.
paradox00
May 3, 04:14 PM
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:21 PM
Would love a larger screen if they can maintain the same body size. I have no interest in something like the giant PDA-sized Android phones.
Maybe the phone is smaller and it makes it look like the screen is bigger, food for thought!
Maybe the phone is smaller and it makes it look like the screen is bigger, food for thought!
No comments:
Post a Comment