Multimedia
Oct 11, 12:45 PM
Costco Deal (http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11163877&search=viewsonic&Sp=S&Mo=3&cm_re=1-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&N=0&whse=&Dx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=All&Dr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ne=4000000&D=viewsonic&Ntt=viewsonic&No=2&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1) You are correct in the resolution, BUT with two of them at less than the cost of one 24"er from Dell it does make up for the real estate--+10 on dual monitor cool factor :DI have the 24 left of the 20. Way cooler for a total of 3520 x 1200.I sent in my Macbook on Monday to get the random shutdown issue repaired. Shipped back to me today--and for some unknown reason was delivered to the Apple Store here in Jax. While I had them on the phone I asked about the Mac Pros they had in stock and I was told they are "out of stock." Take it for what it is, BUT, I'm wondering if it could mean an EOL on the current line.No. I think the line will stay the way it is adding 2.33GHz + $800 and 2.66GHz + $1500 Clovertown options in the Processor section on the configure page. That way according to your type of workload style you can choose between 4 faster cores if you do less multi-threaded work vs 8 slower cores if you are all about a Multi-Threaded Workload.Now that I'm thinking about it, ya think the 1050 height will allow for a 100% 8.5X11 page view?I can't stand less than 1200 high. You know Dell monitors rotate too and rotation is supported with ATI Video cards but not NVIDEA.If your a member of the Dell Forums, you can receive a $350 coupon off the price of the 30"--very tempting.Link please? Never mind I found it with Google.
joeshmo2010
Mar 18, 01:23 PM
I will always continue to use tethering with my unlimited. They will never make me switch and they can accuse all they want.
benixau
Oct 10, 12:07 PM
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
NT1440
Nov 6, 04:58 PM
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
appleguy123
Apr 24, 09:47 AM
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
It is completely antithetical to what I was thought as a Christian as well.
@Aduntu, are you a free will baptist?
It is completely antithetical to what I was thought as a Christian as well.
@Aduntu, are you a free will baptist?
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
Justin bieber page findstatus
Is bonus area Backgrounds
for twitter justin bieber
For a laptop skin,
hello kitty wallpaper laptop.
Flocking to justin wallpapers
avatar wallpapers for desktop
quality Justin+blackberry
mandira-bedi-wallpapers
shirtless,justin bieber
Teen singer justin bieber
Justin Bieber
aug series Justin bieber
joepunk
Mar 13, 09:45 PM
There has been another quake, possible 6.2
0134: The tremor struck off-shore 140km (87 miles) north-east of Tokyo, shaking tall buildings in the capital but the authorities did not issue a tsunami alert, AFP reports. It had a depth of 18.8km, the US Geological Survey says.
And sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima. Possibility of another Tsunami. There were two explosions (hydrogen explosion) at Reactor 3, the operator Tepco says - AFP. Reactor 3 withstood the explosion(s), its operator says.
Probably no tsunami though.
via BBC Twitter feed.
0134: The tremor struck off-shore 140km (87 miles) north-east of Tokyo, shaking tall buildings in the capital but the authorities did not issue a tsunami alert, AFP reports. It had a depth of 18.8km, the US Geological Survey says.
And sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima. Possibility of another Tsunami. There were two explosions (hydrogen explosion) at Reactor 3, the operator Tepco says - AFP. Reactor 3 withstood the explosion(s), its operator says.
Probably no tsunami though.
via BBC Twitter feed.
kresh
Oct 26, 02:39 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
DeathChill
Apr 21, 12:08 AM
It skews the number non the less. iOS is on four different devices the iTv, iPod touch, iphone, and the ipod touch jumbo. And google doesn't make any hardware. They work with companies to have them made like the nexus series.
It's not skewing the number at all because that's the addressable market for any developer developing on iOS.
It's not skewing the number at all because that's the addressable market for any developer developing on iOS.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose?
To show people that Macs are not as fast as Apple claims them to be, and to send Apple a message that they need to get their hardware in gear already. "We" want Apple to succeed as much as you do. What we don't want is for Apple to become complacent, as it has recently, and sell nothing but high-priced boxes full of yesterday's technology. (PC100/133 across the board, and crippled DDR in the Power Macs. No Firewire2, no USB2, no ATA-133. Is this 2002 or is it 1999?)
And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Silence your opposition - fabulous.
Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose?
To show people that Macs are not as fast as Apple claims them to be, and to send Apple a message that they need to get their hardware in gear already. "We" want Apple to succeed as much as you do. What we don't want is for Apple to become complacent, as it has recently, and sell nothing but high-priced boxes full of yesterday's technology. (PC100/133 across the board, and crippled DDR in the Power Macs. No Firewire2, no USB2, no ATA-133. Is this 2002 or is it 1999?)
And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Silence your opposition - fabulous.
Mikael
Jul 12, 04:42 PM
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about a potential single CPU Mac Pro. Woodcrest would obviously have to be used in a dual CPU machine. Also, I'd expect that lower speed grades would be offered too, which would make a 2.66GHz Conroe a nice pick. Or is only the absolutely highest clocked version of the CPU good enough to satisfy the demanding professional Mac users? :rolleyes:
Sorry, just tired of the so called professionals that can't stop whining about how anything other than the best is an insult... It's annoying and it gets old fast.
I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about a potential single CPU Mac Pro. Woodcrest would obviously have to be used in a dual CPU machine. Also, I'd expect that lower speed grades would be offered too, which would make a 2.66GHz Conroe a nice pick. Or is only the absolutely highest clocked version of the CPU good enough to satisfy the demanding professional Mac users? :rolleyes:
Sorry, just tired of the so called professionals that can't stop whining about how anything other than the best is an insult... It's annoying and it gets old fast.
�algiris
Apr 28, 12:11 PM
They didn't delete the word "computer" from the Apple name for nothing.
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
gorgeousninja
Apr 21, 06:58 AM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
I'm guessing that you haven't used any of the earlier versions of Windows much... cos everyone else knows about the random glitches, screen freeze, BSOD and crashes .... unless you count turning it on as stupid ... Well, actually that I can agree with. :)
I'm guessing that you haven't used any of the earlier versions of Windows much... cos everyone else knows about the random glitches, screen freeze, BSOD and crashes .... unless you count turning it on as stupid ... Well, actually that I can agree with. :)
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:57 PM
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:12 AM
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:29 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
dejo
Oct 7, 11:55 AM
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
D*I*S_Frontman
Oct 10, 08:34 AM
I love my Macs. I love OS X. Having a reliable machine running unobtrusively and intuitively makes me more productive and lets me enjoy the process more.
That being said, I am now pretty much immune to the reality distortion field that surrounds Steve Jobs. High-end Macs are dog-slow at most things when compared with high-end AMD/Intel offerings. On the occasional perfectly-tweaked AltiVec intensive tasks a Dual G4 can just barely eek out a frog hair margin victory over the competition. Otherwise they get smoked.
The software side of Apple is doing great things, however. When good ol' Steve said Apple would be "innovating" its way through the recession, this has got to be what he meant. And they are succeeding on that front. OS X spanks all comers when it comes to features, interface, and stability. NO contest.
I think everyone knows that the latest Mac offerings are stop-gap measures. Steve is treading water calmly, trying not to panic, waiting on his two primary chip manifacturers, IBM and Motorola, to deliver the real world processors the R&D has been promising for some time now and rescue Apple.
Not to say Apple is in immediate financial trouble. With Steve at the helm, Apple will continue to be profitable. Apple is in serious credibility trouble, however, among professionals due to lackluster performance. 100mhz mobos are a complete joke for $1k + systems and 167mhz top speed with crippled DDR as the best available? Yikes.
Mac people don't expect the world. We just want machines on par with the rest of the computing world, because we KNOW we already have far and away the best OS working environment. We just don't have that right now. It is my hope that IBM will charge in like the Cavalry and drop a powerful new chip in Apple's lap that will bring Macs right back to the top performance-wise.
Then those switch ads will have some teeth.
That being said, I am now pretty much immune to the reality distortion field that surrounds Steve Jobs. High-end Macs are dog-slow at most things when compared with high-end AMD/Intel offerings. On the occasional perfectly-tweaked AltiVec intensive tasks a Dual G4 can just barely eek out a frog hair margin victory over the competition. Otherwise they get smoked.
The software side of Apple is doing great things, however. When good ol' Steve said Apple would be "innovating" its way through the recession, this has got to be what he meant. And they are succeeding on that front. OS X spanks all comers when it comes to features, interface, and stability. NO contest.
I think everyone knows that the latest Mac offerings are stop-gap measures. Steve is treading water calmly, trying not to panic, waiting on his two primary chip manifacturers, IBM and Motorola, to deliver the real world processors the R&D has been promising for some time now and rescue Apple.
Not to say Apple is in immediate financial trouble. With Steve at the helm, Apple will continue to be profitable. Apple is in serious credibility trouble, however, among professionals due to lackluster performance. 100mhz mobos are a complete joke for $1k + systems and 167mhz top speed with crippled DDR as the best available? Yikes.
Mac people don't expect the world. We just want machines on par with the rest of the computing world, because we KNOW we already have far and away the best OS working environment. We just don't have that right now. It is my hope that IBM will charge in like the Cavalry and drop a powerful new chip in Apple's lap that will bring Macs right back to the top performance-wise.
Then those switch ads will have some teeth.
vincenz
Apr 16, 12:52 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
greenstork
Sep 20, 05:53 PM
its more than just Airport Express for Video, its a TV tunes via the internet and the home network.
Media distribution will be reinvented and specifically tailored to the iTV and its internet capability's. WebTV streamed to the iTV, podcasts will get better quality because its more then the iPod now. I think the preview that Steve gave us was necessary to get content with the launch of the product and maybe even hardware solutions that work with iTV.
Maybe Apple is negotiating with the digital TV providers to offer iTV as an option to there customers, bigger HD and protected content can make this work.
Digital TV providers have absolutely no incentive to use an Apple branded box. They make a lot of revenue on rental of their own set-top boxes that have the ability to play their pay-per-view content. Apple is the competition and they still hold all of the cards (TV content monopoly).
Media distribution will be reinvented and specifically tailored to the iTV and its internet capability's. WebTV streamed to the iTV, podcasts will get better quality because its more then the iPod now. I think the preview that Steve gave us was necessary to get content with the launch of the product and maybe even hardware solutions that work with iTV.
Maybe Apple is negotiating with the digital TV providers to offer iTV as an option to there customers, bigger HD and protected content can make this work.
Digital TV providers have absolutely no incentive to use an Apple branded box. They make a lot of revenue on rental of their own set-top boxes that have the ability to play their pay-per-view content. Apple is the competition and they still hold all of the cards (TV content monopoly).
Speedy2
Oct 7, 04:17 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)
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Truffy
Apr 20, 09:32 AM
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:04 PM
Another 6.2 offshore 180K east from Tokio.
If you'd like more info or just to feed your nuclear paranoia look here:
http://twitter.com/arclight#
If you'd like more info or just to feed your nuclear paranoia look here:
http://twitter.com/arclight#