slu
Oct 7, 04:06 PM
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
1. The blog post you linked is referring to the failure to license the Mac OS in the 80s. I am referring to now, hence why I said Mac OS X. You honestly think if there were more devices capable of running OS X, specifically cheaper devices, that the market share would not be greater? Especially since hardware is now generic, for the most part?
2. That blog post disagrees with the theory that the Mac could have had a Windows style monopoly if they licensed their OS back in the 80s (or platform since hardware was dramatically different back then). I never said they would have dominant market share if you could install Mac OS X on any computer now, just that the market share would be higher. The 5 year old link you provided is not relevant at all to my comment.
3. That blog post is also conjecture, because as the very article you posted states: "It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven."
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
1. The blog post you linked is referring to the failure to license the Mac OS in the 80s. I am referring to now, hence why I said Mac OS X. You honestly think if there were more devices capable of running OS X, specifically cheaper devices, that the market share would not be greater? Especially since hardware is now generic, for the most part?
2. That blog post disagrees with the theory that the Mac could have had a Windows style monopoly if they licensed their OS back in the 80s (or platform since hardware was dramatically different back then). I never said they would have dominant market share if you could install Mac OS X on any computer now, just that the market share would be higher. The 5 year old link you provided is not relevant at all to my comment.
3. That blog post is also conjecture, because as the very article you posted states: "It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven."
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 07:38 PM
I just got off the phone with an Apple tech and had a long discussion with him about my "concerns" about apple Hardware Tech. He basically all but agreed, and told me to pass my comments to Customer Care, and that he would not my arguements.
I know that I'm basically pissing in the wind, but I had to get it off my chest.
Now, Give me a PB worth my $3500 damn it!
I know that I'm basically pissing in the wind, but I had to get it off my chest.
Now, Give me a PB worth my $3500 damn it!
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
~Shard~
Oct 29, 09:59 AM
I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)
sinsin07
Apr 9, 12:19 AM
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
RANBIR KAPOOR WALLPAPERS
Ranbir Kapoor
Ranbir Kapoor Wallpaper 6
Ranbir Kapoor picture gallery
Ranbir Kapoor
online Ranbir Kapoor actor
ranbir-kapoor-cool-wallpaper
Ranbir Kapoor - Celebrities
View more Ranbir Kapoor Movies
Ranbir Kapoor wallpaper of
Ranbir Kapoor Wallpaper
Ranbir Kapoor- sexiest men
Ranbir Kapoor Wallpapers:
Ranbir Kapoor Wallpapers
mmmcheese
Sep 12, 05:05 PM
I think they did it because iTV doesn't really threaten any existing Apple products, so people aren't likely to hold off buying something while they wait for it. It's still odd behavior from Apple, but I'm not complaining.
The other possible reason. When someone is considering buying a movie and asks "Can I play it on my TV?" Apple can say "yes...well, in a few months when product X is available." This was a big question for Amazon...and their answer was "yes, if you connect your computer to your TV" which is a really ugly answer (for consumers).
The other possible reason. When someone is considering buying a movie and asks "Can I play it on my TV?" Apple can say "yes...well, in a few months when product X is available." This was a big question for Amazon...and their answer was "yes, if you connect your computer to your TV" which is a really ugly answer (for consumers).
odedia
Sep 20, 06:11 AM
For 300$, it'll only have a tiny hard drive for caching large h.264 videos on the iTV itself instead of continuesly streaming it over the Wi-Fi.
I am pretty darn sure that iTV will be able to play ANY quicktime video. Meaning - in order to playback other formats, like DivX, just download the quicktime Codec.
I am pretty darn sure that iTV will be able to play ANY quicktime video. Meaning - in order to playback other formats, like DivX, just download the quicktime Codec.
Wayazo
May 5, 09:03 PM
As much as I want to say that it s a grass is always greener type situation, in Phoenix AT&T is considered the worst. Especially indoors. They really must stretch the towers out here in the desert. I can;t even use my iphone in my home.
I live just north of Seattle. I have an AT&T cell tower (sign on tower base identifies it as such) within line of sight less than a quarter mile away in a residential area. Inside my house I have never had a single call successfully completed on my iPhone. They have all dropped out. If I step outside where I can see the tower, about half the calls drop out. I also have delayed reception of SMS and voice mail. For example, this morning I received a voicemail that was left for me the previous evening. I've replaced my phone and cards twice without luck. My neighbor has Verizon. He can stand inside my house right next to me, get full bars, chat up a storm, SMS, browse Internet.
Go figure.
I live just north of Seattle. I have an AT&T cell tower (sign on tower base identifies it as such) within line of sight less than a quarter mile away in a residential area. Inside my house I have never had a single call successfully completed on my iPhone. They have all dropped out. If I step outside where I can see the tower, about half the calls drop out. I also have delayed reception of SMS and voice mail. For example, this morning I received a voicemail that was left for me the previous evening. I've replaced my phone and cards twice without luck. My neighbor has Verizon. He can stand inside my house right next to me, get full bars, chat up a storm, SMS, browse Internet.
Go figure.
Ludeman
Sep 22, 11:09 AM
think they've sold it to me! currently got a g4 tower which does'nt play hidef to well and was thinking about either upgrading���, or getting a mini���. but now they've announced iTV(�200bargin!!!). soon i will hopefully be able serve my iTV all the media off my terrabyte hd plus the hundreds of dvd's. thanks to the ever useful "toppy"! and play it all when i want on my big hidef lcd tv and great surrond sound hi-fi in the living room thanks to iTV! personally i think apple are on to a winner, why is everbody wanting more?
IanC
Mar 18, 11:40 AM
I appreciate what DVD Jon did to help Linux owners watch dvds, but this is going to far. I hope Apple come up with a fix for this, and soon.
blumpy
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
dmw007
Jul 11, 10:57 PM
The Mac Pros are going to receive Woodcrest processors. :)
My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:22 PM
Hmmm... I don't want to be rude but you really should have some basic knowledge in physics before you make statements like that.
bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming? come on. if no direct effects then there are indirect effects.
bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming? come on. if no direct effects then there are indirect effects.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 12:45 PM
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:05 PM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
And Fear.
And Fear.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
So there is no big
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
Mooey
Apr 9, 03:42 AM
The delusion is this thread is hilarious. I'm seeing little casual gamers saying that Nintendo should be bought out, that Sony and Microsoft are doomed because their consoles are cheap on eBay because of device malfunctions (like Apple computers / handhelds don't?), and people claiming that touchscreens are going to replace the buttons for controllers sooner or later.
Your opinions are nice, but you're a casual gamer. The closet thing you've probably touched as far as hardcore gaming goes is Plants vs Zombies.
Until I start seeing games like Uncharted 3, God of War, Halo, Fallout, etc. on an iOS device, you guys can continue keeping me entertained.
Your opinions are nice, but you're a casual gamer. The closet thing you've probably touched as far as hardcore gaming goes is Plants vs Zombies.
Until I start seeing games like Uncharted 3, God of War, Halo, Fallout, etc. on an iOS device, you guys can continue keeping me entertained.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
Eso
Mar 18, 09:53 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
It's easy to make the argument unlimited data plans are priced according to an average amount of data that wireless devices use. The average amount of data used while tethering can be shown to be substantially higher, resulting in higher costs, and justifying a higher price. The key is that their argument may rest upon the price of providing unlimited data. You argument rests upon the amount of data used, however in either case (whether tethered or not) users can use an unlimited amount of data.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
It's easy to make the argument unlimited data plans are priced according to an average amount of data that wireless devices use. The average amount of data used while tethering can be shown to be substantially higher, resulting in higher costs, and justifying a higher price. The key is that their argument may rest upon the price of providing unlimited data. You argument rests upon the amount of data used, however in either case (whether tethered or not) users can use an unlimited amount of data.
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:00 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Piggie
Apr 28, 10:53 AM
My child's school is part of the USA "laptop schools" program and every child from 5th grade through graduation is required to have a laptop. The only three they are allowed to choose from (currently) are PCs and cost $1099, $1649, and $2029.
I looked at the specs and all three models are similarly priced as equivalent Mac laptops (actually the $1099 PC laptop is less well equipped than the similar Mac laptop).
We are not allowed to buy them Macs. (It is something that angers me quite a bit, that they require us to buy the equipment but won't let us buy what we want - in my opinion if they want specific equipment, they should buy it - since I am paying the $$$ I should be able to buy what system I want as long as it meets certain requirements).
Actually, I'm note sure about the US, But I would fully agree with stopping Schools etc from buying Mac's for use in education.
The point of a school is to teach/educate/prepare children/students for the skills they are going to need when they leave and enter into the real world, the marketplace for jobs.
Like it or not, PC's are vastly more in use in typical businesses these days.
You do now want a vast amount of people leaving school to start their new jobs, being confronted by PC's and say, oh, we're never used PC's we only used Macs at college.
That's just a non starter of an idea. And getting businesses to dump all their PC's and buy Mac's overnight is just not going to happen. Like it or not.
I also take issue with those who seem to think Anything non Apple is worthless junk, that's just silly talk that belongs in the playground.
I also believe Apple could make a low cost (lost cost for Apple) Plastic cased laptop, perhaps trim the specs down a little and make is much more affordable to a typical family. I don't know why people cannot grasp that many here are not the typical consumer who is struggling to pay bills, feed the family, run the car etc etc.
It's very insulting to brand such a person, who is working hard to bring up a family "Joe Cheapo"
I looked at the specs and all three models are similarly priced as equivalent Mac laptops (actually the $1099 PC laptop is less well equipped than the similar Mac laptop).
We are not allowed to buy them Macs. (It is something that angers me quite a bit, that they require us to buy the equipment but won't let us buy what we want - in my opinion if they want specific equipment, they should buy it - since I am paying the $$$ I should be able to buy what system I want as long as it meets certain requirements).
Actually, I'm note sure about the US, But I would fully agree with stopping Schools etc from buying Mac's for use in education.
The point of a school is to teach/educate/prepare children/students for the skills they are going to need when they leave and enter into the real world, the marketplace for jobs.
Like it or not, PC's are vastly more in use in typical businesses these days.
You do now want a vast amount of people leaving school to start their new jobs, being confronted by PC's and say, oh, we're never used PC's we only used Macs at college.
That's just a non starter of an idea. And getting businesses to dump all their PC's and buy Mac's overnight is just not going to happen. Like it or not.
I also take issue with those who seem to think Anything non Apple is worthless junk, that's just silly talk that belongs in the playground.
I also believe Apple could make a low cost (lost cost for Apple) Plastic cased laptop, perhaps trim the specs down a little and make is much more affordable to a typical family. I don't know why people cannot grasp that many here are not the typical consumer who is struggling to pay bills, feed the family, run the car etc etc.
It's very insulting to brand such a person, who is working hard to bring up a family "Joe Cheapo"
NikeTalk
Mar 18, 09:40 AM
That guy that used 90GBs should be the first one converted.
Multimedia
Jul 13, 11:18 AM
What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.Exactly. And that's why many of us think they will exercise choice b. Otherwise they would have to use the much more expensive Meroms just to top out at 2.33GHz which makes no sense. iMacs are due a do-over anyway. Why not a do-over for Conroe now so they can run above 2.33GHz?
I don't mean 3GHz now. I mean sometime next year with the new design they can do now in anticipation of additional heat then when 3GHz is no longer the top most expensive speed. Even liquid cooling is not out of the question in the next iMac design. Apple has developed a lot of experience with that on the G5 Power Macs. And the Quad's liquid cooling system is dead quiet.
Bumping iMacs to 2 and 2.16GHz Meroms hardly seems like much of a performance boost to me. But perhaps you're right. Face it. We're all in the zone of wild speculation and unsubstantiated prognostication. ;)
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.Exactly. And that's why many of us think they will exercise choice b. Otherwise they would have to use the much more expensive Meroms just to top out at 2.33GHz which makes no sense. iMacs are due a do-over anyway. Why not a do-over for Conroe now so they can run above 2.33GHz?
I don't mean 3GHz now. I mean sometime next year with the new design they can do now in anticipation of additional heat then when 3GHz is no longer the top most expensive speed. Even liquid cooling is not out of the question in the next iMac design. Apple has developed a lot of experience with that on the G5 Power Macs. And the Quad's liquid cooling system is dead quiet.
Bumping iMacs to 2 and 2.16GHz Meroms hardly seems like much of a performance boost to me. But perhaps you're right. Face it. We're all in the zone of wild speculation and unsubstantiated prognostication. ;)
deannnnn
May 6, 10:07 PM
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
It's difficult for people who do not live in New York City to understand this issue. You should be happy that your iPhone works for you where you live, not upset at people who have difficulties with it.
It's difficult for people who do not live in New York City to understand this issue. You should be happy that your iPhone works for you where you live, not upset at people who have difficulties with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment