Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)....
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
Starchitect
Oct 24, 12:54 AM
7200rpm 160GB drive? Cute...:)
Just a little wishfull thinking.
Just a little wishfull thinking.
barkins
Nov 28, 02:06 PM
Why are we still talking about the Zune. Does anyone really care? It's just another mp3 player among so many others behind iPod. :rolleyes:
It will never match the iPod's popularity, ever.
It will never match the iPod's popularity, ever.
aswitcher
Jan 13, 01:44 PM
not to mention:
MacBook OZONE
MacBook CO (monoxide)
MacBook ARGON
MacBook METHANE
MacBook HYDROGEN
MacBook XENON
MacBook NEON
MacBook KRYPTON
I could go a MacBook Xenon (quad core) ;)
MacBook OZONE
MacBook CO (monoxide)
MacBook ARGON
MacBook METHANE
MacBook HYDROGEN
MacBook XENON
MacBook NEON
MacBook KRYPTON
I could go a MacBook Xenon (quad core) ;)
Trauma1
Apr 20, 11:43 PM
When I don't see hipsters, students, and soccer moms using Macbook "Pros" at Starbucks, then I'll believe that it's a "Pro" model
Performance and specifications determine whether or not it's a "Pro", not the people who use them. I'm not a professional race car driver, but my car has over 400hp. Does that mean that my car is not the high-performance sports car that the automotive world widely claims it to be?
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
Performance and specifications determine whether or not it's a "Pro", not the people who use them. I'm not a professional race car driver, but my car has over 400hp. Does that mean that my car is not the high-performance sports car that the automotive world widely claims it to be?
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
Yebubbleman
Apr 19, 01:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
Seriously?! How long have you been waiting? Since last refresh?
Please...Please...Please...provide a pro graphics card option (FirePro or Quadro)
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Not expecting a huge update here other than Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt, and 6XXX series AMD graphics.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
Does this mean a Mini update is right behind it?
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950!
For heavens sake give it a nice GPU!!!!!!!!:eek:
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
So, is this the fast iMac refresh in years?
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
You misunderstood me friend...I meant an HD 6950 2GB (Desktop Card)
Yes, its a pipe dream...but cant a man dream:rolleyes:
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
Ah yes, well a desktop card would be nice. And the 27" does have the room when compared to the 21". They could engineer it in there if they wanted to.
But yes, I share your dream.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
Seriously?! How long have you been waiting? Since last refresh?
Please...Please...Please...provide a pro graphics card option (FirePro or Quadro)
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Not expecting a huge update here other than Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt, and 6XXX series AMD graphics.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
Does this mean a Mini update is right behind it?
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950!
For heavens sake give it a nice GPU!!!!!!!!:eek:
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
So, is this the fast iMac refresh in years?
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
You misunderstood me friend...I meant an HD 6950 2GB (Desktop Card)
Yes, its a pipe dream...but cant a man dream:rolleyes:
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
Ah yes, well a desktop card would be nice. And the 27" does have the room when compared to the 21". They could engineer it in there if they wanted to.
But yes, I share your dream.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
jgonzo
Jan 21, 02:58 PM
with GTO in garage
lordonuthin
Dec 19, 05:28 PM
yep, a good thing for sure. we are doing better as a team for real now. just gotta keep people interested and involved
Too bad we can't get an occational mention on the front page of this here website! ARN, are you out there, hint, hint... I'd write something to post on the front page but I'm not a good writer :D
Too bad we can't get an occational mention on the front page of this here website! ARN, are you out there, hint, hint... I'd write something to post on the front page but I'm not a good writer :D
Eraserhead
Mar 31, 03:23 PM
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
We did more history coverage of WW2 than India and China combined.
We did more history coverage of WW2 than India and China combined.
MacFan782040
Nov 27, 03:28 PM
Well think about it...all Apple's consumer products have iSights built in for "video-confrencing out of the box". If they want to push the MacMini, they will need a low-end display with a built-in iSight for this.
Sell it seperately at $249.
Maybe bundle a MacMini/display together?
MacMini- $599
bundled display- $200
$799 for a computer/display + mouse/keyboard
...your talking less than $900 for a full Apple system-not bad!
*And for everyone saying 17" is too small... Think of all the people who bought MacBooks at 13.3"! Nobody I know that has one uses an external display.
Sell it seperately at $249.
Maybe bundle a MacMini/display together?
MacMini- $599
bundled display- $200
$799 for a computer/display + mouse/keyboard
...your talking less than $900 for a full Apple system-not bad!
*And for everyone saying 17" is too small... Think of all the people who bought MacBooks at 13.3"! Nobody I know that has one uses an external display.
firestarter
Mar 20, 01:14 PM
Can you give me an example where the basic RIGHTS of a religious person was violated by upholding gay rights?
Or an example of ANY right given to gay people that aren't likewise extended to every other citizen?
I suspect Daveoc64 is referring to this case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368) - concerning a gay couple from his home town.
Equivalent rights were not set against each other - the hoteliers believed they had a right to restrict their trading based on religious beliefs, the gay couple contested that and won. So it's incorrect to say that gay rights were held in a higher regard than religious - since the rights were awarded according to the situation.
The case is interesting nonetheless. It would be interesting to see what the result would be if the same case were to be contested in the US.
Or an example of ANY right given to gay people that aren't likewise extended to every other citizen?
I suspect Daveoc64 is referring to this case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368) - concerning a gay couple from his home town.
Equivalent rights were not set against each other - the hoteliers believed they had a right to restrict their trading based on religious beliefs, the gay couple contested that and won. So it's incorrect to say that gay rights were held in a higher regard than religious - since the rights were awarded according to the situation.
The case is interesting nonetheless. It would be interesting to see what the result would be if the same case were to be contested in the US.
LondonCentral
Mar 22, 11:52 PM
end the classic? Please no! It's great for storing large libraries, uncompressed music/complete music + video libraries and you are able to use it without looking. iOS is fun to look at, but the ipod app is terrible and can't replace tactile controls. I also hate using my phone as a music player as phone calls require me to interface with the player, rather than just take out my earbuds and answer the call (much faster and easier)
The real, and best, reason to not discontinue it is that the classic represents Apples first big win. Its a very symbolic design, and I doubt they will be retiring it...ever. Much like porsche and the carrera, or Ford and the F-150.
The classic IS the ipod. Notice how people still call the ipod touch the "itouch". Few think of it as "the ipod".
There always be a market for a slim, easy to use, portable, high capacity music player with touch controls.
I've never heard anyone call it the iTouch until I read your post.
They're all iPods of one sort or another, simple. Everything changes, everything moves forwards...embrace the change.
Use the clickwheel in your mind....
Yes, I just said that. :|
The real, and best, reason to not discontinue it is that the classic represents Apples first big win. Its a very symbolic design, and I doubt they will be retiring it...ever. Much like porsche and the carrera, or Ford and the F-150.
The classic IS the ipod. Notice how people still call the ipod touch the "itouch". Few think of it as "the ipod".
There always be a market for a slim, easy to use, portable, high capacity music player with touch controls.
I've never heard anyone call it the iTouch until I read your post.
They're all iPods of one sort or another, simple. Everything changes, everything moves forwards...embrace the change.
Use the clickwheel in your mind....
Yes, I just said that. :|
leekohler
Mar 22, 01:00 PM
I don't believe any was born gay, that's my opinion. I believe you make the choice in your life, just like you make the choice on what career you want and college you desire to go to. I have friends that were once married (guy/girl) and then divorced because they liked their sex better. So now they are openly gay and happy.
You opinion may be true of some people- not all. I did not choose to be attracted to guys. I also could never have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible for me, if you get my meaning. Stop telling other people that you know everything about them. You don't. Not everyone is the same.
You opinion may be true of some people- not all. I did not choose to be attracted to guys. I also could never have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible for me, if you get my meaning. Stop telling other people that you know everything about them. You don't. Not everyone is the same.
lejudicieux
Nov 27, 01:33 AM
http://images2.memegenerator.net/Troll-Face/ImageMacro/840054/LOL-I-TROLL-U.jpg
Fix'd
Fix'd
jonharris200
Sep 1, 04:00 PM
"Thin is in". I like that slogan.
Tonsko
Jan 23, 04:11 PM
http://homepage.mac.com/mattlike/Chally.jpg
2009 Challenger R/T
Yes, mate. Black stripes every time you go somewhere! (Although that could get pricey :P )
2009 Challenger R/T
Yes, mate. Black stripes every time you go somewhere! (Although that could get pricey :P )
kntgsp
Sep 14, 10:46 AM
The way CR seems to approach it (and I might have to reread their article that they keep changing and updating and reaffirming and I lost interest a while ago) is as if they approached a computer review like this:
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
mscriv
Mar 24, 01:44 PM
This thread reminds me of a show I saw recently about this topic and one of it's segments featured Exodus International. It was an interesting program.
http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Our-America-with-Lisa-Ling-Pray-the-Gay-Away-FULL-EPISODE
I'm not familiar with the Exodus International, but in the interview the current president says they make no claims about "curing" homosexuality, that they just provide support for those who have similar views. One of the founders who left the movement was interviewed as well. It seems their program has gone through many changes since it's founding over 30 years ago.
There were similar programs with differing beliefs profiled as well.
As far as the app goes, Apple as a business has the right to do what they please, but I imagine it's difficult to apply criteria based on what might be "offensive" to large groups of people. That doesn't really sound like much of a measurable criteria to me. But, that plays right into Apple's status quo of keeping a tight rein on their own ecosystem. With non-specific and unmeasureable criteria they can do what they want without violating their own "rules".
http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Our-America-with-Lisa-Ling-Pray-the-Gay-Away-FULL-EPISODE
I'm not familiar with the Exodus International, but in the interview the current president says they make no claims about "curing" homosexuality, that they just provide support for those who have similar views. One of the founders who left the movement was interviewed as well. It seems their program has gone through many changes since it's founding over 30 years ago.
There were similar programs with differing beliefs profiled as well.
As far as the app goes, Apple as a business has the right to do what they please, but I imagine it's difficult to apply criteria based on what might be "offensive" to large groups of people. That doesn't really sound like much of a measurable criteria to me. But, that plays right into Apple's status quo of keeping a tight rein on their own ecosystem. With non-specific and unmeasureable criteria they can do what they want without violating their own "rules".
kalun
Oct 23, 11:00 PM
Meanwhile, product checks (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2163) indicate that several European hardware distributers "ran dry" of MacBook and MacBook Pro inventory several weeks ago.
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
cube
Mar 25, 12:53 PM
It doesn't mean anything, as I've noted about three times already.
That's not the correct answer. The possible answers concerning the documented hardware capabilities are:
- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
That's not the correct answer. The possible answers concerning the documented hardware capabilities are:
- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
Edge100
Sep 1, 12:47 PM
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
No way would I pay an extra $500 for an 8% faster machine and a slighly larger display, when for that money I can go with the 20" and buy a second widescreen 20" display and have a HUGE viewable area.
The 23" is going to have to be a LOT closer to the 20" in order for it to sell. I'm thinking $1899 or $1999, or else it will have to be decked out with extra RAM, HD space, or CPU speed.
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
No way would I pay an extra $500 for an 8% faster machine and a slighly larger display, when for that money I can go with the 20" and buy a second widescreen 20" display and have a HUGE viewable area.
The 23" is going to have to be a LOT closer to the 20" in order for it to sell. I'm thinking $1899 or $1999, or else it will have to be decked out with extra RAM, HD space, or CPU speed.
puma1552
Feb 5, 08:48 PM
For something creeping up on 15 years old, that thing is in fantastic shape. Mustangs are an odd car for me. I never seem to like them each time a new one is released, but then the older they get, the more I start to like them. A buddy of mine has a '93 Cobra with just a couple thousand miles on it, and I absolutely love it.
I read a story a while back about people and their music tastes. Many people never really get out of their 20's with their favorite bands. The stuff you like around that age is what sticks with you forever as your favorite. I think it might be something similar with cars. I see cars from back in the early-mid 90s, when I was in high school and then into college, and I get all nostalgic and stuff. Fox body 5L Mustangs, FC RX7s, C4 Corvettes, Syclone/Typhoon, etc. The older I get, and the older those cars get, the more I love them. New cars are nice, but some things just stick with you. And those cars are permanently stuck with me.
Treat that Stang nice Puma, because it is certainly a keeper.
Well said.
Yeah it's definitely been taken care of, both owners kept it for quite a few years each, both only putting about 6,500 miles a year on it. You can tell it's been garaged likely its whole life because the headlights and tail lights aren't hazy from sun exposure.
I remember when these cars were just 1-2 years old, basically factory fresh, and I would go to the dealer and drool over them under the lights at night--ones just like this, with these 17" wheels and leather. I've always loved them, and probably always will. I'm also a fan of the 5L cars, and the thirdgen F-bodies of the day (I own a thirdgen Camaro too).
I really can't wait to get it.:)
I read a story a while back about people and their music tastes. Many people never really get out of their 20's with their favorite bands. The stuff you like around that age is what sticks with you forever as your favorite. I think it might be something similar with cars. I see cars from back in the early-mid 90s, when I was in high school and then into college, and I get all nostalgic and stuff. Fox body 5L Mustangs, FC RX7s, C4 Corvettes, Syclone/Typhoon, etc. The older I get, and the older those cars get, the more I love them. New cars are nice, but some things just stick with you. And those cars are permanently stuck with me.
Treat that Stang nice Puma, because it is certainly a keeper.
Well said.
Yeah it's definitely been taken care of, both owners kept it for quite a few years each, both only putting about 6,500 miles a year on it. You can tell it's been garaged likely its whole life because the headlights and tail lights aren't hazy from sun exposure.
I remember when these cars were just 1-2 years old, basically factory fresh, and I would go to the dealer and drool over them under the lights at night--ones just like this, with these 17" wheels and leather. I've always loved them, and probably always will. I'm also a fan of the 5L cars, and the thirdgen F-bodies of the day (I own a thirdgen Camaro too).
I really can't wait to get it.:)
shackleb
Apr 27, 07:41 PM
Here is a snapshot of the website 'portableapps.com' from Christmas of 2005:
http://replay.web.archive.org/20051225045018/http://portableapps.com/
Note that it defines 'app' as "a computer program like a web browser or word processor", and then further notes:
"A portable app is a computer program that you can carry around with you on a portable device and use on any Windows computer. When your USB thumbdrive, portable hard drive, iPod or other portable device is plugged in, you have access to your software and personal data just as you would on your own PC. And when you unplug, none of your personal data is left behind."
Not sure when Apple's app store opened, but I know that I personally have (as others have) been using the term 'app' for many MANY years before even 2005 to refer to applications.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you can't own 'drug store', 'hardware store', 'grocery store', 'software store', or 'application store', it doesn't make sense that Apple, or anyone else, could own 'app store'.
Just sayin'
http://replay.web.archive.org/20051225045018/http://portableapps.com/
Note that it defines 'app' as "a computer program like a web browser or word processor", and then further notes:
"A portable app is a computer program that you can carry around with you on a portable device and use on any Windows computer. When your USB thumbdrive, portable hard drive, iPod or other portable device is plugged in, you have access to your software and personal data just as you would on your own PC. And when you unplug, none of your personal data is left behind."
Not sure when Apple's app store opened, but I know that I personally have (as others have) been using the term 'app' for many MANY years before even 2005 to refer to applications.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you can't own 'drug store', 'hardware store', 'grocery store', 'software store', or 'application store', it doesn't make sense that Apple, or anyone else, could own 'app store'.
Just sayin'
kingtj
Mar 24, 01:50 PM
They'll need to do something about the power connectors, though.
The last couple times I decided to go with a re-flashed PC version of a graphics card for my Mac Pro, I had to buy special 6-pin power connectors to go between the card and the motherboard since the PC version assumed you had a different type of power connector to use.
When you consider you often need 2 of these cables, typically priced at upwards of $20 each, that can start to make a re-flashed PC version of a given card look a lot less attractive compared to the official Apple version.
i would love to buy an off the shelf gpu for half the price of a mac branded amd card. please let this be true then i will not sell my 2008 macpro
The last couple times I decided to go with a re-flashed PC version of a graphics card for my Mac Pro, I had to buy special 6-pin power connectors to go between the card and the motherboard since the PC version assumed you had a different type of power connector to use.
When you consider you often need 2 of these cables, typically priced at upwards of $20 each, that can start to make a re-flashed PC version of a given card look a lot less attractive compared to the official Apple version.
i would love to buy an off the shelf gpu for half the price of a mac branded amd card. please let this be true then i will not sell my 2008 macpro
No comments:
Post a Comment