Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
jav6454
Mar 24, 10:27 PM
Ehhh...you're right that it's no 1200watt corsair. But it supports dual CPUs, crap ton of ram, and 5770x2 or 5870...surely it could support a 6970(from a tdp perspective)
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
FireStar
Oct 22, 01:17 PM
Huh? iPhone 4 cases are all over the place.
I think he means iPod Touch 4G.....
I think he means iPod Touch 4G.....
quagmire
Jan 5, 04:03 PM
I'm not a fan of the blue lights either (though I do like the LED lights on MBZ and Audi and the angel eyes on BMWs)
I like the smoked tails because it just seems to flush and flow with the car.. the red lights were just too bright. The lights can be seen, they don't completely cover the light... the backup lights are 100% visible, and the break lights shine right through the overlays (even in complete day light)
Some people though black out everything including the backup lights. There is this one person in my apartment complex that has his taillights all black and I couldn't see his backup lights and as I got up to his car, he started to back out. Luckily he saw me.
I like the smoked tails because it just seems to flush and flow with the car.. the red lights were just too bright. The lights can be seen, they don't completely cover the light... the backup lights are 100% visible, and the break lights shine right through the overlays (even in complete day light)
Some people though black out everything including the backup lights. There is this one person in my apartment complex that has his taillights all black and I couldn't see his backup lights and as I got up to his car, he started to back out. Luckily he saw me.
Farns514
Jan 5, 06:12 PM
With or without integrated M249s? :D
2011 Subaru Legacy. Our first Subaru. So impressed we're selling the other cars and buying a 2011 Outback for my wife!
http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/legacy/2010/ns/2010_subaru_legacy_prf_ns_51410_717.jpg
It's not a fancy looking car, in fact it looks easily can be mistaken for any other boring sedan from GM/Ford/Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
Im jealous, im regretting not getting a Subaru Legacy. I got a 2010 Ford Fusion, should have got the legacy for the good looks and the AWD.
2011 Subaru Legacy. Our first Subaru. So impressed we're selling the other cars and buying a 2011 Outback for my wife!
http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/legacy/2010/ns/2010_subaru_legacy_prf_ns_51410_717.jpg
It's not a fancy looking car, in fact it looks easily can be mistaken for any other boring sedan from GM/Ford/Toyota/Honda/Nissan.
Im jealous, im regretting not getting a Subaru Legacy. I got a 2010 Ford Fusion, should have got the legacy for the good looks and the AWD.
antmarobel
Mar 31, 12:07 PM
They rearrange themselves at their own will! If I drag one to the right of the other, for instance, another one, completely different, comes to the place where I intended to place the first one...:eek:
Earendil
Nov 28, 11:02 AM
OK, this is out of hand... all of you who are complaining about Dell being half the price of the Apple LCDs read the topic that's been linked like 5 times, it's pretty interesting and informative.
Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.
A small few are saying that. I believe the rest finally got the point or actually went to the linked article. As the most vocal poster in the last 24 hours though, I'd like to point out I've concede the point above numerous times, and fully agree with t. I myself am a victim of Apple not offering a consumer level machine :(
A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.
Man, if they did that I might pick up a MacMini next summer as well!
Here's to dreaming :)
Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.
A small few are saying that. I believe the rest finally got the point or actually went to the linked article. As the most vocal poster in the last 24 hours though, I'd like to point out I've concede the point above numerous times, and fully agree with t. I myself am a victim of Apple not offering a consumer level machine :(
A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.
Man, if they did that I might pick up a MacMini next summer as well!
Here's to dreaming :)
takao
Feb 26, 05:53 AM
i just checked the austrian chevrolet cruze site and interestingly the 2.0 diesel engine there doesn't match the power output of the engine mentioned here as it's a 163 hp, 360 nm engine opposed to the 150hp 320nm
the power output would fit the r 425 on the VM motori site but then the displacement doesn't match (2 liters vs. 2.5)
edit: nevermind ... the 163hp diesel is the new 2011 replacement engine for the 150 hp engine in the euro market, so i suspect the old production line of the 150hp version can no produce the engine for the US market ;)
the power output would fit the r 425 on the VM motori site but then the displacement doesn't match (2 liters vs. 2.5)
edit: nevermind ... the 163hp diesel is the new 2011 replacement engine for the 150 hp engine in the euro market, so i suspect the old production line of the 150hp version can no produce the engine for the US market ;)
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 01:22 PM
Pet Store, the trademark, was not a word mark but a Typed Drawing mark. Hence it's the logo itself that was trademarked, not the phrase.
Try again.
Its a trademark. Give me a break. What do you think the "typed drawing" said?
Try again Knight.
Anyway, didn't Apple again use "We have the largest App Store" in their financials just last week, implying other "App Stores" weren't as large but that the term App Store is quite descriptive and generic ?
Too bad for them they keep diluting their own trademark. Anyway, until the USPTO is done with their opposition phase, it's not decided yet.
That is a very weak argument. Apple does not say they are the only app store. They have the largest app store. And their app store is named App Store™ and the name is trademarked.
I think you mean App Store™
Never forget cmd-alt-2 (or apple-option-2 if you're old-skool) ;)
Thanks!
Try again.
Its a trademark. Give me a break. What do you think the "typed drawing" said?
Try again Knight.
Anyway, didn't Apple again use "We have the largest App Store" in their financials just last week, implying other "App Stores" weren't as large but that the term App Store is quite descriptive and generic ?
Too bad for them they keep diluting their own trademark. Anyway, until the USPTO is done with their opposition phase, it's not decided yet.
That is a very weak argument. Apple does not say they are the only app store. They have the largest app store. And their app store is named App Store™ and the name is trademarked.
I think you mean App Store™
Never forget cmd-alt-2 (or apple-option-2 if you're old-skool) ;)
Thanks!
AppleScruff1
Apr 9, 10:13 PM
I learned on a stick, a one ton GMC dump truck. I've driven everything from 4 speeds to an 18 speed Fuller Roadranger.
reflex
Aug 29, 09:20 AM
Yonah doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Merom is pin-compatible and costs exactly the same amount. Besides, it would be a PR boost for Apple to have the entire lineup 64-bit and "Leopard ready".
They can still update the mini in February or March to be "Leopard ready".
They can still update the mini in February or March to be "Leopard ready".
lordonuthin
May 3, 12:21 PM
so running things like itunes and iphoto, and surfing the web, things are fine?
I also have the terminal going with 6 tabs, each running folding on another machine. I worried about iTunes because I had heard that it took quite a bit of cpu, but not for me it doesn't seem to have any effect on folding.
I also have the terminal going with 6 tabs, each running folding on another machine. I worried about iTunes because I had heard that it took quite a bit of cpu, but not for me it doesn't seem to have any effect on folding.
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:13 PM
Never said anything about cooperative multi-tasking.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
I know it is, unfortunately, the userspace APIs don't allow 3rd party apps to profit from that. You can't just write code and hope the process scheduler will happily deal with you (as any modern, pre-emptive OS scheduler does). No matter what, your apps gets sent messages to suspend itself and the frameworks are built in a way that if you don't intercept these to "background" certain tasks using a certain limited API to do so, the defaults kick in and you get sent to oblivion.
It's pre-emptive cooperative multi-tasking if you will. It's limiting. This is a "Truck" OS. I don't need limits on truck. If I wanted limits, I'd drive a car, to use the Steve analogy. ;)
I'm talking about intelligent pre-emptive multitasking with API's that allow the Apps to make intelligent decisions removing the burden from users to "clean up" after apps they have launched but aren't using.
Apps aren't intelligent (artificial intelligence ain't quite there yet). If I have apps open, there's a reason and I want them to stay open. I'm not CPU/memory limited enough to warrant dumping these to some kind of swap space and prevented from sitting in their idle loop, waiting on their input.
Taking control away from the user is in the end dumbing down the experience. This is what most folks are afraid of with all these features.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
They can only be instantly available if they stay resident in RAM. If they are swapped out, then they need to be swapped back in.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
I know it is, unfortunately, the userspace APIs don't allow 3rd party apps to profit from that. You can't just write code and hope the process scheduler will happily deal with you (as any modern, pre-emptive OS scheduler does). No matter what, your apps gets sent messages to suspend itself and the frameworks are built in a way that if you don't intercept these to "background" certain tasks using a certain limited API to do so, the defaults kick in and you get sent to oblivion.
It's pre-emptive cooperative multi-tasking if you will. It's limiting. This is a "Truck" OS. I don't need limits on truck. If I wanted limits, I'd drive a car, to use the Steve analogy. ;)
I'm talking about intelligent pre-emptive multitasking with API's that allow the Apps to make intelligent decisions removing the burden from users to "clean up" after apps they have launched but aren't using.
Apps aren't intelligent (artificial intelligence ain't quite there yet). If I have apps open, there's a reason and I want them to stay open. I'm not CPU/memory limited enough to warrant dumping these to some kind of swap space and prevented from sitting in their idle loop, waiting on their input.
Taking control away from the user is in the end dumbing down the experience. This is what most folks are afraid of with all these features.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
They can only be instantly available if they stay resident in RAM. If they are swapped out, then they need to be swapped back in.
Multimedia
Aug 25, 09:59 AM
If they bring out a core2duo mac mini it will be faster than my 18month old power mac.Duh. Welcome to the completed transition. I need to run a few tests to confirm this once they are out, but I think any Core 2 Mac may be faster than the Dual 2GHz G5 PowerMac from October of 2005.cant see it happening, they might go for a faster core duo in the mac mini and macbook then core 2 duo in iMac and Macbook proThen you are in denial. Core Duo is already history. And Apple doesn't like to be selling historical artifacts any longer than they must - especially when the new state-of-the-art processors don't cost them any more. :rolleyes:I don't think we are going to see Core Duos in Apples for much longer, though it is possible that the base Mini will offer a Core Duo, and the better model a Core 2 Duo.
Still, I think it much more likely that with this revision, both Minis will sport Core 2 Duos, probably Meroms to keep them quiet and lower-powered, and will feature the 965 graphics chipset which frankly is a very nice and inexpenisve graphics solution.
What I am really hoping is that there will be an add-on base module in a similar form factor to turn any Mini into a full-blown HD/Audio media centre. Now that could really be exciting. While Tivos and Sky+ boxes are welcome in my home, we are just aching for someone to really rethink the entire home media experience. I'd love to see Apple take a shot at that.I think the addition of the new EyeTV hybrid USB2 Digital-Analog Broadcast Tuner (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) may be a significant part of the ticket you are looking for with a new 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo mini. Ships early September for only $150. They have combined two large bulky Firewire tuners from older products they previously sold only separately for a combined price of $500 into a tiny not-much-bigger-than-a-flash-ram-stick USB2 product that will sell for only $150. It's a miracle!
Still, I think it much more likely that with this revision, both Minis will sport Core 2 Duos, probably Meroms to keep them quiet and lower-powered, and will feature the 965 graphics chipset which frankly is a very nice and inexpenisve graphics solution.
What I am really hoping is that there will be an add-on base module in a similar form factor to turn any Mini into a full-blown HD/Audio media centre. Now that could really be exciting. While Tivos and Sky+ boxes are welcome in my home, we are just aching for someone to really rethink the entire home media experience. I'd love to see Apple take a shot at that.I think the addition of the new EyeTV hybrid USB2 Digital-Analog Broadcast Tuner (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) may be a significant part of the ticket you are looking for with a new 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo mini. Ships early September for only $150. They have combined two large bulky Firewire tuners from older products they previously sold only separately for a combined price of $500 into a tiny not-much-bigger-than-a-flash-ram-stick USB2 product that will sell for only $150. It's a miracle!
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 10:03 AM
Context doesn't impact a trademark either. The only thing that would permit anyone to use the "App Store" trademark if it was granted would be outside of Apple's selected field of trade.
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
This I totally agree with. In regard to written language, context makes a difference. Context may be substituted for your more correct language of "field of trade." One wouldn't be in violation of the trademark if presenting it in general terms (outside of the field or in reference to something w/in the field, much like Windows OS vs. GUI windows), but would be if they wanted to use the term w/in their own title w/in the same field.
I think we're saying the same things, but perhaps my original post wasn't clear and relied to heavily on implied understanding....
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
This I totally agree with. In regard to written language, context makes a difference. Context may be substituted for your more correct language of "field of trade." One wouldn't be in violation of the trademark if presenting it in general terms (outside of the field or in reference to something w/in the field, much like Windows OS vs. GUI windows), but would be if they wanted to use the term w/in their own title w/in the same field.
I think we're saying the same things, but perhaps my original post wasn't clear and relied to heavily on implied understanding....
r.j.s
Jan 3, 02:30 PM
With or without integrated M249s? :D
Not mounted, but they are in the toolbox, along with a M2 that someone can operate while standing in the bed. :D
:eek:
Not mounted, but they are in the toolbox, along with a M2 that someone can operate while standing in the bed. :D
:eek:
dmaxdmax
Nov 28, 01:23 PM
Erm... So you're calling a slightly reheated Toshiba Gigabeat-POS with pseudo-WiFi (sure, it may be fully enabled in the future, but with a screen with that resolution, it'd be preety much useless) a "moterately high ante"?
<snip>
And by the way, there's already a "Gates' sucessor", and I'm talking about the CEO title, not the Chairman... Come to think about it, Ballmer is already a "chair-man" of sorts... :D And we all know how smart that guy is. :rolleyes:
What I meant by moderately high ante was the dollars spent, not the product.
I don't think we'll know what MS executives will do when Gates leaves until he's gone. Even Mr. B.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Zune is crap. However it's always foolish to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, even when it's lazy and clueless. They can wake up and buy clues.
<snip>
And by the way, there's already a "Gates' sucessor", and I'm talking about the CEO title, not the Chairman... Come to think about it, Ballmer is already a "chair-man" of sorts... :D And we all know how smart that guy is. :rolleyes:
What I meant by moderately high ante was the dollars spent, not the product.
I don't think we'll know what MS executives will do when Gates leaves until he's gone. Even Mr. B.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Zune is crap. However it's always foolish to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, even when it's lazy and clueless. They can wake up and buy clues.
jgould
Feb 21, 06:44 AM
Not concerned with the impending refresh? Or do you plan to return and rebuy post-refresh?
Having picked up a 13" MBP yesterday, I won't take this one back unless there is something that I need in it. Overall I'm not normally someone that worries about the contents of a refresh.
Having picked up a 13" MBP yesterday, I won't take this one back unless there is something that I need in it. Overall I'm not normally someone that worries about the contents of a refresh.
umu
Jan 1, 05:46 PM
How about some kind of iSight?
OdduWon
Jan 1, 06:14 PM
with iTv,the new features in iChat (background images), and the rumors of new iSight and apple game console, perhaps we will se see some type of iToy like device.:p
Also, with updates to iChat, perhaps we will see some smaller form of iSight for use with iTv and iPod/TelePod. This would also allow people to watch movies with friends around the world with a core animation powered keynote like Pic in Pic format.
Or perhaps ^QT8^ will provide this function. ;)
Also, with updates to iChat, perhaps we will see some smaller form of iSight for use with iTv and iPod/TelePod. This would also allow people to watch movies with friends around the world with a core animation powered keynote like Pic in Pic format.
Or perhaps ^QT8^ will provide this function. ;)
ghostlyorb
Mar 25, 04:49 PM
I might actually buy that adaptor now....
N10248
Mar 24, 01:35 PM
But for something like the MBA, where your options are a C2D or iX CPU, and a GPU that's runs like it's 2+ years old, vs a new GPU and a newish CPU, I'll choose AMD over Intel any day of the week.
Unless Apple gets clever and uses ThunderBolt for connecting external graphics cards, after all it is a PCI-E based connector.
Edit: Travis beat me by moments
Unless Apple gets clever and uses ThunderBolt for connecting external graphics cards, after all it is a PCI-E based connector.
Edit: Travis beat me by moments
Evangelion
Jul 20, 04:47 AM
I have doubts about this statement.
Leopard will be able to run on all macs from the past several years. Vista requires a relatively new machine.
I doubt it. I bet that Vista will run on several year old machines. You might not get all the bells and whistles, but I don't have all the bells and whistles of Tiger on this Mac Mini of mine either. And since just about all OEM's wil preload Vista on their machines, the sales-numbers will be HUGE. And then we have those who upgrade their existing machines.
Leopard will be able to run on all macs from the past several years. Vista requires a relatively new machine.
I doubt it. I bet that Vista will run on several year old machines. You might not get all the bells and whistles, but I don't have all the bells and whistles of Tiger on this Mac Mini of mine either. And since just about all OEM's wil preload Vista on their machines, the sales-numbers will be HUGE. And then we have those who upgrade their existing machines.
PBF
Apr 1, 09:28 PM
^ Yup, same here. A little bit annoying having to reopen the same window.
No comments:
Post a Comment