Squonk
Sep 26, 10:21 AM
I can't wait to get my hands on an iPhone- I'm getting tired of my SLVR. As soon as the iPhone launches I'm throwing my SLVR in to a river. This is starting to become tradition, there must be a half dozen old cell phones of mine which have been cast in to the briny deep. What a liberating experience.
Dude! The Sierra Club would appreciate if you donated the phones to them instead! :D
Dude! The Sierra Club would appreciate if you donated the phones to them instead! :D
Amazing Iceman
Apr 4, 08:56 AM
Just another ploy to scare people into buying there over priced software.
I'm sure Apple takes security very very seriously. Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Why pay for bloatware, when Sophos is giving it away for free? Then, there's also ClamXAV.
I'm sure Apple takes security very very seriously. Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Why pay for bloatware, when Sophos is giving it away for free? Then, there's also ClamXAV.
Jimmieboy
Sep 14, 01:21 AM
I like the 8801, but I definitely think it's overpriced at $399. You could get a Sidekick 3 prepaid for that price.
Sure is overpriced! Over in Australia it's around $1200. The one good thing I liked was the diamond coated dsiplay. It was scratch proof. Maybe apple should diamond coat their iphone! :p
EDIT: Actually I just did a bit of research. I think my claim that they diamond coated their displays is false. No one take my word on it.
Sure is overpriced! Over in Australia it's around $1200. The one good thing I liked was the diamond coated dsiplay. It was scratch proof. Maybe apple should diamond coat their iphone! :p
EDIT: Actually I just did a bit of research. I think my claim that they diamond coated their displays is false. No one take my word on it.
milo
Sep 5, 04:35 PM
ok, just made a quick mockup of what i would like to see announced next week :cool:
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via an front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
You nailed it, that would be perfect. That's EXACTLY what they should do.
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via an front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
You nailed it, that would be perfect. That's EXACTLY what they should do.
Micjose
Apr 25, 01:44 PM
YESSS! Exactly what i wanted to hear. I'm waiting till the new redesign comes out to buy my First MacBook Pro.. :D
CJM
Sep 5, 03:10 AM
I love those kind of reactions, just look one time at this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500), and you'll know what I mean
True.
I don't have a use for such a device right now, but I was also a person that said I didn't want an iPod... I now have 3. So in the future, I might be wanting a video streamer.
True.
I don't have a use for such a device right now, but I was also a person that said I didn't want an iPod... I now have 3. So in the future, I might be wanting a video streamer.
israelagm
Mar 30, 12:27 PM
Just for those that insist Microsoft only ever uses the term 'program' . XP dates back to 2001.
http://i.imgur.com/Wdw3y.jpg
Am I missing something from this? You're using a screenshot of Windows showing file types and the only thing showing the use of the term "Application" is on iTunes related files?
How does that prove your point? I really don't know if I missed what you were actually trying to convey? It's kinda like when someone is horribly wrong and because of that you start to question yourself if you were even right in the first place.
http://i.imgur.com/Wdw3y.jpg
Am I missing something from this? You're using a screenshot of Windows showing file types and the only thing showing the use of the term "Application" is on iTunes related files?
How does that prove your point? I really don't know if I missed what you were actually trying to convey? It's kinda like when someone is horribly wrong and because of that you start to question yourself if you were even right in the first place.
cadillaccactus
Sep 19, 02:51 PM
I was satisfied with the image quality on my 20" Dell widescreen, but sitting at my desk to watch a movie instead of my couch isn't the movie experience I'm going for.
This is precisely why other companies' attempts to "bring the PC into the living room" have failed (and will continue to do so). Think of the logistics of this (if you will) from an interior design perspective. Are you going to put your media center PC on a TV stand in your living room across from the couch to watch movies/TV? Are you also going to have a desk chair sitting right in front of it for those times you'd like more PC than TV? People (families) do not use computers in their living room and they do not watch movies/TV sitting at a desk.
This is why iTV is brilliant. Living rooms are for content, not computing. Content is the only aspect of your computer that is necessary in the living room, and it is all iTV delivers.
thoughts?
This is precisely why other companies' attempts to "bring the PC into the living room" have failed (and will continue to do so). Think of the logistics of this (if you will) from an interior design perspective. Are you going to put your media center PC on a TV stand in your living room across from the couch to watch movies/TV? Are you also going to have a desk chair sitting right in front of it for those times you'd like more PC than TV? People (families) do not use computers in their living room and they do not watch movies/TV sitting at a desk.
This is why iTV is brilliant. Living rooms are for content, not computing. Content is the only aspect of your computer that is necessary in the living room, and it is all iTV delivers.
thoughts?
Maxx Power
Oct 27, 09:36 AM
But this particular crap from Greenpeace has already been debunked.
They have gone from a respectable environmentalist group to a militant anti-business lobby.
I am Green, but I am not Greenpeace!
link at /. where this has been gone over a while ago, what a bogus Greenpeace report: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198431&cid=16258305
I don't know if you can call that debunking. I see a lot of greenpeace arguments as well that are valid. If anything, I'd say the author and the posts go so far as to trivialize what greenpeace had to point out, but not invalidating it. You can't invalidate environmental risks that occur sometime down the road by purely using data from now.
Same thing with global warming, which should be renamed into a non-misleading term "global weather change" since strictly speaking some regions will warm up, others will cool down (like europe, right now, with the gulf stream cut short, they've been getting snow in Germany and France for example, consistently over the last few years where there wasn't any before), we know for a fact we can affect our weather, we know for a fact that in many regions (mine for example), the weather has been consistently warming up and gradually changing on the yearly scale (last year the temp record in winter was broken again by 1 degree, and has been since the beginning of records), so it's not a debate about whether or not global warming is an observable fact, it should be a debate about how much it is caused by us and to what extent it'll affect us and what can we actively do about it. Anymore debate into its existence is a stall of time and a waste of effort.
I think that any argument against greenpeace implying that "artificial chemicals, when dumped into our ecosystem, will not do harm as long as we don't observe it" can be safely ignored. If you put it this way, the scientific industry that does this kind of environmental research doesn't even close to the funding that R&D gets, and that it isn't revenue generating. There isn't nearly as big of a chance that the eco-scientists will catch problems as fast as they are made.
They have gone from a respectable environmentalist group to a militant anti-business lobby.
I am Green, but I am not Greenpeace!
link at /. where this has been gone over a while ago, what a bogus Greenpeace report: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198431&cid=16258305
I don't know if you can call that debunking. I see a lot of greenpeace arguments as well that are valid. If anything, I'd say the author and the posts go so far as to trivialize what greenpeace had to point out, but not invalidating it. You can't invalidate environmental risks that occur sometime down the road by purely using data from now.
Same thing with global warming, which should be renamed into a non-misleading term "global weather change" since strictly speaking some regions will warm up, others will cool down (like europe, right now, with the gulf stream cut short, they've been getting snow in Germany and France for example, consistently over the last few years where there wasn't any before), we know for a fact we can affect our weather, we know for a fact that in many regions (mine for example), the weather has been consistently warming up and gradually changing on the yearly scale (last year the temp record in winter was broken again by 1 degree, and has been since the beginning of records), so it's not a debate about whether or not global warming is an observable fact, it should be a debate about how much it is caused by us and to what extent it'll affect us and what can we actively do about it. Anymore debate into its existence is a stall of time and a waste of effort.
I think that any argument against greenpeace implying that "artificial chemicals, when dumped into our ecosystem, will not do harm as long as we don't observe it" can be safely ignored. If you put it this way, the scientific industry that does this kind of environmental research doesn't even close to the funding that R&D gets, and that it isn't revenue generating. There isn't nearly as big of a chance that the eco-scientists will catch problems as fast as they are made.
MacVault
Sep 19, 06:19 PM
...How do they check their email when you take the notebook on the road?
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
They don't care about email. They just want to watch the movies I buy from iTunes, etc.
As for where iTunes puts it's content... the original poster had a good point - how to have the content synched between the external/networked storage device and the local machine, for example an laptop, so when one is on the road they can have access to the content on their storage server at home, although limited by the laptops available hard drive space, etc.
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
They don't care about email. They just want to watch the movies I buy from iTunes, etc.
As for where iTunes puts it's content... the original poster had a good point - how to have the content synched between the external/networked storage device and the local machine, for example an laptop, so when one is on the road they can have access to the content on their storage server at home, although limited by the laptops available hard drive space, etc.
Evangelion
Aug 23, 11:45 PM
Steve Jobs knew this was a BS patent and it shows in his comments. Absolutely Stupid. Hell, the LISA had a Hierarchal File System.
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. Truem the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
If it's UI infringes on the patentt, sure. If it doesn't, why sue?
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because it would have cost the five times more than it did now? Because Creative has very little of interest for Apple? Because if they did that, everyone would be suing Apple with hopes that Apple would just buy them as well?
Wong Hoo to Creative engineer: "This is no good, i give you $1000000 more and i want something much much better"
unCreative engineer: "Wooo Hooo, thanks Mr, Hoo, i'll do it in 128 different colors, am sure that it will turn the market upside-down"
As Jobs said in his most recent keynote more money in R&D isn't everything, and if he says so i believe him.
Unless Woo has something extraordinary under his sleeve - which he doesn't cause if he did he would not need more money - i see Creative in the same position in a couple of years from now. And then they'll try to sue somebody else.
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. Truem the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
If it's UI infringes on the patentt, sure. If it doesn't, why sue?
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because it would have cost the five times more than it did now? Because Creative has very little of interest for Apple? Because if they did that, everyone would be suing Apple with hopes that Apple would just buy them as well?
Wong Hoo to Creative engineer: "This is no good, i give you $1000000 more and i want something much much better"
unCreative engineer: "Wooo Hooo, thanks Mr, Hoo, i'll do it in 128 different colors, am sure that it will turn the market upside-down"
As Jobs said in his most recent keynote more money in R&D isn't everything, and if he says so i believe him.
Unless Woo has something extraordinary under his sleeve - which he doesn't cause if he did he would not need more money - i see Creative in the same position in a couple of years from now. And then they'll try to sue somebody else.
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
gugy
Sep 6, 12:08 AM
Don't forget the 42" HD monitor Apple will drop at the event. What else did you think Apple would let you watch a movie on? (beside your iPod of course)
Bring it on!
Bring it on!
Full of Win
Mar 30, 11:27 AM
App may be generic, but does that also make App Store generic ?
Multimedia
Sep 12, 03:33 AM
Multimedia, in the Sept.12th thread, you said:
"I now predict a 50% chance the C2Q Mac will be unveiled tomorrow. And if not tomorrow no later than early November."
I guess that's what people disagreed with (although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet). I agree with you that it is indeed really big news and I still can't quite wrap my mind around the idea, but I'd be extremely surprised if Apple announces anything Kentsfield later today. (It's already the 12th here in South Korea.)I agree. I let my enthusasm for the surprise Core 2 Quadro would be ready for retail shelves mid October swept my logic away. I've changed that post since coming to my senses.
"I now predict a 50% chance the C2Q Mac will be unveiled tomorrow. And if not tomorrow no later than early November."
I guess that's what people disagreed with (although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet). I agree with you that it is indeed really big news and I still can't quite wrap my mind around the idea, but I'd be extremely surprised if Apple announces anything Kentsfield later today. (It's already the 12th here in South Korea.)I agree. I let my enthusasm for the surprise Core 2 Quadro would be ready for retail shelves mid October swept my logic away. I've changed that post since coming to my senses.
Macinthetosh
Apr 30, 01:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
They stuck with the previous design for 3-4 years. It has now been 3 years with the current look.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
They stuck with the previous design for 3-4 years. It has now been 3 years with the current look.
macnerd93
Mar 29, 01:10 PM
what the heck LOL, this is a joke right? I have NEVER seen a single new windows phone being used in public nor do I see that many Android devices in the UK. mostly I see
1. BlackBerries
2. iPhones
never seen a new windows phone LOL, most people who are happy with iPhones etc, will stick with them and won't bother going for anything else.
Windows Mobile is doomed for failure, how many times has it been revamped and rebranded over the years? like 3 or 4 times if I remember
1. BlackBerries
2. iPhones
never seen a new windows phone LOL, most people who are happy with iPhones etc, will stick with them and won't bother going for anything else.
Windows Mobile is doomed for failure, how many times has it been revamped and rebranded over the years? like 3 or 4 times if I remember
dime21
Mar 23, 06:14 PM
The true irony here is your blatant assumption that is based on nothing more than a "gut feeling".
ok... so will you answer my question then please?
ok... so will you answer my question then please?
bloodycape
Sep 12, 06:44 PM
Too bad they didn't keep the 60gig and set its price at $300 and upgrade it also. They could have made a real killing there.
Gundampilotspaz
Sep 5, 04:07 PM
I want my Core 2 Duo Macbook!
SiliconAddict
Jul 14, 06:12 PM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.
Try 4Ghz...Anandtech in their review (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18) overclocked their X6800 to a stable 4Ghz. :eek:
Try 4Ghz...Anandtech in their review (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18) overclocked their X6800 to a stable 4Ghz. :eek:
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:36 PM
An .exe is an executable, not an application. Some people may have called them applications, but not MS. Never. Until now.
Never? Until now?
Please!
exe's were refered to as applications for over a decade. As has been demonstrated in THIS thread may times already.
Never? Until now?
Please!
exe's were refered to as applications for over a decade. As has been demonstrated in THIS thread may times already.
Eye4Desyn
Apr 30, 04:12 PM
I couldn't possibly be happier to hear this news. Bring on May 3rd. I've got cash in hand.
Chundles
Oct 12, 05:53 PM
Apparently Sting is to be involved in the launch of the brown Zune. 5% will go to fight diarrhoea in Africa.
;)
(PS don't flame me. Diarrhoea, unlike the brown zune, is not a laughing matter.)
I thought "African Diarrhoea" was the technical name of the Zune's brown colour. You wait and see, next year we'll get a new colour from MS for the Zune - "Delhi Belly Explosion" a sort of greenish-brownish-orange...
Ah dysentery... it's funny on so many levels. ;)
;)
(PS don't flame me. Diarrhoea, unlike the brown zune, is not a laughing matter.)
I thought "African Diarrhoea" was the technical name of the Zune's brown colour. You wait and see, next year we'll get a new colour from MS for the Zune - "Delhi Belly Explosion" a sort of greenish-brownish-orange...
Ah dysentery... it's funny on so many levels. ;)
Skika
Apr 25, 03:54 PM
The "step forward" of which you speak, of which is the basis of this article, is only in regards to the exterior design, nothing else. Sure if they improve upon the durability and the ease of servicing, that'll be a decent step forward, otherwise, we're talking about cosmetics, and again while most of the people who lurk these forums care about form over function, function is all that matters and it won't be that different next rev, redesign or not.
Herp derp. Im pretty sure there will be a minor spec bump as well, and exterior design in a laptop is a pretty important feature or a "function and should be taken in consideration just as well (or not even more) than a new "ixy procesor" and a "8650 gt mx" graphics card, which in most cases just serve as a hard on for spec geeks.
why am i even responding you are clearly bitter and are writing purely from that bitterness.
Herp derp. Im pretty sure there will be a minor spec bump as well, and exterior design in a laptop is a pretty important feature or a "function and should be taken in consideration just as well (or not even more) than a new "ixy procesor" and a "8650 gt mx" graphics card, which in most cases just serve as a hard on for spec geeks.
why am i even responding you are clearly bitter and are writing purely from that bitterness.
0 comments:
Post a Comment