nuckinfutz
May 7, 11:54 AM
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements." If you mean that we should get free Cloud services without ads then I think you're completely wrong and I'm most worried about sites that provide free services and have absolutely nothing but VC cash to pay for it. And if you mean we should have the option of paying for Cloud services to avoid ads, then fine, but you can do that with Gmail, so I don't see why you think MobileMe is any better than Gmail (from the privacy perspective).
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.�
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.�
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
asdf542
Mar 28, 10:16 AM
Sure, but the "delay" could be that iOS 5 isn't ready yet and Apple isn't going to launch iPhone 5 w/o a full iOS update. Quite possible iOS5 engineers were temp. xfered to OS X 10.7 at this final stage to ensure it makes out the door on time and w/ fewest glitches possible. Once 10.7 goes GM iOS5 development will go back to normal speed.
Snow Leopard did not effect iOS release dates. If the iPad 2 was delayed like the rumors were suggesting then I would believe this, but it wasn't. So far all of Apple's releases for 2011 have been typical with their past schedules. No reason to think any different for this one.
Snow Leopard did not effect iOS release dates. If the iPad 2 was delayed like the rumors were suggesting then I would believe this, but it wasn't. So far all of Apple's releases for 2011 have been typical with their past schedules. No reason to think any different for this one.
mcrain
Apr 18, 11:59 AM
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
karlrmac
Nov 3, 04:32 PM
I just ordered this on ebay from BUY and it cost 13.99 plus 8 bucks shipping, for new unopened unit. A great deal if you ask me. Its less than the other mounts you find and i think it will work great.
*edit* I did a web search and found that Arkon sells a general purpose friction mount that could most likely be used with the Tom-Tom mount:
http://www.arkon.com/weighted_friction_dash_mount.php
They also sell a mount designed for the iPhone.
*edit* I did a web search and found that Arkon sells a general purpose friction mount that could most likely be used with the Tom-Tom mount:
http://www.arkon.com/weighted_friction_dash_mount.php
They also sell a mount designed for the iPhone.
netdog
Jul 30, 03:05 AM
American cellular service is years behind the rest of the world. It is truly sad. I used to think that dropped lines and bad connections were just part of cell service. Now I realize that they are just part of American cell service.
cazlar
Sep 15, 07:37 PM
Some has to say it:
If MacOSXRumors is predicting it, then it's never going to happen.
To be fair, I think you are thinking of MacOSRumors (MOSR), not MacOSXRumors. The former have a terrible record in regards to rumours (ie they make up everything), while the latter seem to be a bit more reliable. Shame they are named so similarly though.
If MacOSXRumors is predicting it, then it's never going to happen.
To be fair, I think you are thinking of MacOSRumors (MOSR), not MacOSXRumors. The former have a terrible record in regards to rumours (ie they make up everything), while the latter seem to be a bit more reliable. Shame they are named so similarly though.
Porscheboy16
Aug 11, 09:24 AM
Crap! My MacBook should be here on Monday. Is there anyway to return an online order?
jlasoon
Mar 29, 09:43 AM
The more things that are in the cloud, the closer I get to hitting AT&T's 150GB home DSL (non-uverse) data limit.
I just dropped them for this very reason, went back to Brighthouse networks. 40Mbps no cap. :D
I just dropped them for this very reason, went back to Brighthouse networks. 40Mbps no cap. :D
NAG
Apr 25, 10:07 AM
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
Your context is incorrect. I was referring to the website that supposedly has a lot of information about you, not the location database.
Thank you for the demonstration as to how almost everyone here is acting irrationally, though.
Your context is incorrect. I was referring to the website that supposedly has a lot of information about you, not the location database.
Thank you for the demonstration as to how almost everyone here is acting irrationally, though.
lgutie20
Mar 29, 02:32 PM
Note that MS is dropping the standalone Zune hardware, and moving the Zune interface into Windows Phone 7.
If your phone can do it all, why make standalone music players?
They exist for the real music addicts. I really believe that if there is an iPod that will be the first to disappear it will be the Touch.
If your phone can do it all, why make standalone music players?
They exist for the real music addicts. I really believe that if there is an iPod that will be the first to disappear it will be the Touch.
ChrisTX
Mar 27, 12:16 AM
If true...sounds like iPhone 3GS and iPad 1 owners are going to be shown the door.
We'll see, but I plan to upgrade from my iPad 1 to an iPad 3 when available anyways.
We'll see, but I plan to upgrade from my iPad 1 to an iPad 3 when available anyways.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
rickdollar
Mar 26, 11:22 PM
With the increased competition of Android I doubt Apple will be dragging their feet when it comes to moving forward with iOS. The new Web OS will be out this summer, too.
Guess we'll see soon enough.
Guess we'll see soon enough.
jholzner
Aug 11, 09:03 AM
This is good news for future Macbook owners. I'm interested in when the iMac will get Conroe. A friend of mine is switching from Windows and wants the iMac but is waiting for Conroe in the iMac. I only hope they go with the desktop processor in the iMac and not Merom since he's not interested in the mobile processor in his desktop.
Why would they give the Macbook that but leave the iMac with the original Core Duo? Doesn't make sense. I would think all three would get it or just the Macbook Pro.
Well, hopefully the iMac will be updated sooner than the portables. Conroe is out and available in quantities now where as Merom won't be as available in quantities until the end of this month.
Why would they give the Macbook that but leave the iMac with the original Core Duo? Doesn't make sense. I would think all three would get it or just the Macbook Pro.
Well, hopefully the iMac will be updated sooner than the portables. Conroe is out and available in quantities now where as Merom won't be as available in quantities until the end of this month.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 6, 06:21 PM
What a joke of a tablet. Nothing but a piece of crap.
lmao
+1
back yo my precious (ipad)
lmao
+1
back yo my precious (ipad)
VivaLaDricas
Apr 26, 02:53 PM
Don't see how this is news really. 2+2=4 webOS, Winmo7, etc.. whatever is on the sheer amount of devices Android is on will have larger numbers. Apple does things their way to make money on the hardware as well which = lower share.
Hopefully HP does something with webOS and MS makes strides in their mobile area so we have a lot of choice and not eventually 80%+ Android stuff.
Nothing against Android here, just saying most of this is obvious and a no sh** type of news.
Hopefully HP does something with webOS and MS makes strides in their mobile area so we have a lot of choice and not eventually 80%+ Android stuff.
Nothing against Android here, just saying most of this is obvious and a no sh** type of news.
cr2sh
Nov 22, 12:58 PM
Wouldn't it be something if Apple sold one of the first unlocked phones from the get-go.
You walk into an Apple store, they have the iPhone in GSM form.. and you get a trade-in discount for your old phone.. the Apple reps pop-out your sim card, transfer your contacts.. and hand you an ipod like phone that has all your old info in it and works with your current plan.
:eek:
You walk into an Apple store, they have the iPhone in GSM form.. and you get a trade-in discount for your old phone.. the Apple reps pop-out your sim card, transfer your contacts.. and hand you an ipod like phone that has all your old info in it and works with your current plan.
:eek:
d0minick
Mar 31, 08:12 AM
I've been using the inverted scrolling for a few weeks. At first, it was very weird and found myself scrolling the wrong way often. However, after a few day, I started to "get" the metaphor and it became natural. Now when I go to work and use their computers, I feel the scrolling on XP is the opposite of what feels natural.
If it only took me a few days to reverse over a decade of training and muscle memory, then maybe it's not that a stupid setting.
LMAO, come on man!
You changed your ways to suit the OS? I'd understand if you were use to inverted but the OP is correct. It should not be defaulted inverted.
I bet you were also "holding it wrong". I love my apple gadgets, but thats a bit borderline ridiculous.
If it only took me a few days to reverse over a decade of training and muscle memory, then maybe it's not that a stupid setting.
LMAO, come on man!
You changed your ways to suit the OS? I'd understand if you were use to inverted but the OP is correct. It should not be defaulted inverted.
I bet you were also "holding it wrong". I love my apple gadgets, but thats a bit borderline ridiculous.
flopticalcube
May 4, 04:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
CCC would also copy any issues (apart from hardware faults) so how would that be better?
Hopefully you would rotate your backups, as is usually recommended, so that issues would become apparent before overwriting an older backup and you could restore from a safe place and then use TM to recover any lost work.
CCC would also copy any issues (apart from hardware faults) so how would that be better?
Hopefully you would rotate your backups, as is usually recommended, so that issues would become apparent before overwriting an older backup and you could restore from a safe place and then use TM to recover any lost work.
Ommid
Apr 25, 09:44 AM
Scary, and seems to be US only.
Thank god its us only!! lol
Thank god its us only!! lol
pmz
May 4, 03:06 PM
i intend to get mine on a disc rather then a download.
Why can't you just download it and back it up on a USB key, or a thousand USB keys?
Give me one good reason why you can't do that. If you're posting on Macrumors you have enough bandwidth to get it, just may have to wait a few minutes.
Why can't you just download it and back it up on a USB key, or a thousand USB keys?
Give me one good reason why you can't do that. If you're posting on Macrumors you have enough bandwidth to get it, just may have to wait a few minutes.
macenforcer
Aug 7, 05:19 PM
Thanks for raising the noise question. My thoughts exactly. Since there wasn't a case redesign, I suspect the noise specs to be similar to G5.
Anyone?
No way. The G5s main problem was the fan that cooled the HDs and the main motherboard chipset, it wasn't the cpu fans that were loud. This machine will be much quiter.
These new xeons require 1/4 the watts.
Anyone?
No way. The G5s main problem was the fan that cooled the HDs and the main motherboard chipset, it wasn't the cpu fans that were loud. This machine will be much quiter.
These new xeons require 1/4 the watts.
padapada
Nov 5, 06:45 AM
Sophos is terrible on Windows; why would anyone want to install that garbage on their Mac? :confused:
From this comment I can tell you have had absolute NO EXPERIENCE with the product.
We have had it in our company for 10 years and it's absolutely non-intrusive and hassle free.
Please don't generate noise if you don't have any relevant experience.
Patrick
From this comment I can tell you have had absolute NO EXPERIENCE with the product.
We have had it in our company for 10 years and it's absolutely non-intrusive and hassle free.
Please don't generate noise if you don't have any relevant experience.
Patrick
gnomeisland
Apr 28, 03:14 PM
If not this year then soon I predict Apple will revamp the MP to be a module system tied together using TB. Of course, I hope they'll wait until the 100GB TB spec is ratified and in use, otherwise it will be a step backwards. But overall I think it could be a serious improvement for the MP. You buy the "brain" you want (mini ala i3/i5, a middle brain with Desktop i5/i7, and a "pro" brain with 1 or 2 Xeons. The brain would be CPU, RAM, USB, and TB (and perhaps wireless and ethernet). You can buy storage containers and video containers as you need.
This system would be easily and quickly standardized (commoditized) giving continuing Apple's tight fist of control but letting them spin off the lowest margined, fasting changing areas of video processors and storage.
I personally think it will work a bit like RED's cameras ushering a new era of embedded and server room technology. You could have a fanless I/O station and/or monitor sitting on your desk with all the fans and heavy lifting equipment isolated somewhere else.
This system would be easily and quickly standardized (commoditized) giving continuing Apple's tight fist of control but letting them spin off the lowest margined, fasting changing areas of video processors and storage.
I personally think it will work a bit like RED's cameras ushering a new era of embedded and server room technology. You could have a fanless I/O station and/or monitor sitting on your desk with all the fans and heavy lifting equipment isolated somewhere else.