FearNo1
Apr 23, 10:42 AM
No, I did not mean the traditional GPS. I was referring to the one that the 911 system uses. I don't think that can be turned off. IOW, if you have any modern cell phone, you can be tracked. The difference is that with the iphone, the info is stored on the phone itself.
you can turn off the GPS in a phone and most people assume that when you do it stops tracking you yet as it already been shown it just starts storing info base the cell towers.
I just do not like the fact you can not opt out of it. It just feels wrong to me.
you can turn off the GPS in a phone and most people assume that when you do it stops tracking you yet as it already been shown it just starts storing info base the cell towers.
I just do not like the fact you can not opt out of it. It just feels wrong to me.
Chris Bangle
Sep 1, 12:10 PM
Why not make a 30inch macbook pro.:cool: how hard can it be.
MacRumors
Mar 24, 01:00 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/24/mac-os-x-10-6-7-adds-support-for-new-amd-graphics-cards/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/24/135905-amd_logo.jpg
%IMG_DESC_4%
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/24/135905-amd_logo.jpg
dmelgar
Apr 19, 11:10 AM
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.
13" maybe, but the 11" doesn't look to be refreshed for a while. AFAIK Intel has as yet not announced a new CPU that is as low power as the Core2Duo in the 11" MBA.
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
13" maybe, but the 11" doesn't look to be refreshed for a while. AFAIK Intel has as yet not announced a new CPU that is as low power as the Core2Duo in the 11" MBA.
Chundles
Aug 29, 10:07 AM
If the MacBook and Mini stay with core 1 CPUs, sales will grind to a halt.
What a load of bollocks. Core 2 will ship in Macs when it's ready. No point announcing now but with a wait time of 6 weeks or so - now that will bring sales to a halt.
What a load of bollocks. Core 2 will ship in Macs when it's ready. No point announcing now but with a wait time of 6 weeks or so - now that will bring sales to a halt.
hyperpasta
Jul 18, 02:03 PM
Rentals are stupid...what if something comes up and I can't watch my movie within the alotted time? I'm just screwed, then?
Actually, other online movie rental services serve up "frozen" movies. You can keep a frozen movie for a month without it expiring. To watch it, you must "thaw" the movie. Then it expires a week later. In this way, you can download a movie when convenient and watch when convenient... not much pressure at all. Simply thaw the movie when you're ready to watch.
The only way I see this being announced at WWDC is if it ties in with Leopard's rumored BitTorrent feature. However, this doesn't make much sense, since what will Tiger/Panther/Windows users do to get movies?
Actually, other online movie rental services serve up "frozen" movies. You can keep a frozen movie for a month without it expiring. To watch it, you must "thaw" the movie. Then it expires a week later. In this way, you can download a movie when convenient and watch when convenient... not much pressure at all. Simply thaw the movie when you're ready to watch.
The only way I see this being announced at WWDC is if it ties in with Leopard's rumored BitTorrent feature. However, this doesn't make much sense, since what will Tiger/Panther/Windows users do to get movies?
indigoflowAS
Oct 23, 10:22 AM
This update had best show up w/ an updated GPU (256 X1600 standard at least), otherwise the ~10% performance increase and other oddball tidbits is hardly worth it.
I'm starting to think I'm gonna sit this one out, as on the edge of my seat I have been for some time. But at this rate, goodness knows when the next update will be. Back to my TiBook I go.
I'm starting to think I'm gonna sit this one out, as on the edge of my seat I have been for some time. But at this rate, goodness knows when the next update will be. Back to my TiBook I go.
wms121
Nov 21, 09:58 AM
Mercury can get you a cell plug-in for the PCI slot:
http://www.mc.com/cell/products/view/index.cfm?id=106&type=boards
Lessee....179 GFLOPS. Can't link it in tandem with IBM Blades, just Mercury
Cell's..hmmm*.
..where is my binary calculator?
WW
*{..found this stuff later:
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
http://www.mc.com/cell/products/view/index.cfm?id=106&type=boards
Lessee....179 GFLOPS. Can't link it in tandem with IBM Blades, just Mercury
Cell's..hmmm*.
..where is my binary calculator?
WW
*{..found this stuff later:
Daveismoney
Feb 6, 10:07 AM
just picked her up about a month ago, a little Christmas present to myself.. loving it
CalBoy
Mar 21, 12:32 AM
There are homeopathic apps in the AppStore. Those won't work any better than this 'pray the gay away' app, but they still are allowed in the store.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
imnotatfault
Aug 19, 09:09 AM
I disagree with pretty much everything you said here Manic Mouse :D.
I really hope the iPod doesn't go down the line of convergence/frankenstein/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. It's a solid music player and it's main priority should be as such. In my experience with work colleagues and parents/in-laws the iPod is almost bordering on being too difficult as it is just with just music and video. Many never bother with video or podcasts or even firmware updates because they perceive it to be too complex. Adding slide-out keyboards, larger/deeper navigation menus, wifi connections, and email configuration would probably push it over the edge as far as being too technologically intimidating for most. Not to mention the size sacrifice.
Apple may bring something else to the market to compete if there really is a decent market for devices like the Mylo (which I'm personally not too sure there is).
Only if the device was separate from the iPod, which stayed truer to its roots, and more importantly, there was some sort of higher integration. Like the proposed built-in dock the mac mini would have. I still miss that.
I really hope the iPod doesn't go down the line of convergence/frankenstein/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. It's a solid music player and it's main priority should be as such. In my experience with work colleagues and parents/in-laws the iPod is almost bordering on being too difficult as it is just with just music and video. Many never bother with video or podcasts or even firmware updates because they perceive it to be too complex. Adding slide-out keyboards, larger/deeper navigation menus, wifi connections, and email configuration would probably push it over the edge as far as being too technologically intimidating for most. Not to mention the size sacrifice.
Apple may bring something else to the market to compete if there really is a decent market for devices like the Mylo (which I'm personally not too sure there is).
Only if the device was separate from the iPod, which stayed truer to its roots, and more importantly, there was some sort of higher integration. Like the proposed built-in dock the mac mini would have. I still miss that.
shtoat
Apr 19, 01:26 PM
one a separate note: Who gave this article a negative?:mad: Probably someone wanting more iphone/ipad/ios rumours.:p
:)
:)
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
colonelsanders
Mar 25, 12:19 AM
Per your comment below, I think you might be misunderstanding Crossfire.
The MP does have an upgrade option to include two 5770's that will allow you to drive up to six displays. This is great but this should not be confused with crossfire.
If they were set up in crossfire you would only be able to drive 3 monitors as you would be limited to the output of your primary card. The second card acts as extra processing load for the primary card while set up in crossfire. Additionally if they were setup in crossfire you would see a bridge between the two cards.
As far as i know Apple has never supported crossfire or sli. They have however supported multi gpus in one machine.
Well then, Apple is gonna confuse alot of people with the 5770 crossfire MP upgrade. Look it up folks, crossfire is supported
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTg5MTY5NDQ
The MP does have an upgrade option to include two 5770's that will allow you to drive up to six displays. This is great but this should not be confused with crossfire.
If they were set up in crossfire you would only be able to drive 3 monitors as you would be limited to the output of your primary card. The second card acts as extra processing load for the primary card while set up in crossfire. Additionally if they were setup in crossfire you would see a bridge between the two cards.
As far as i know Apple has never supported crossfire or sli. They have however supported multi gpus in one machine.
Well then, Apple is gonna confuse alot of people with the 5770 crossfire MP upgrade. Look it up folks, crossfire is supported
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTg5MTY5NDQ
mkrishnan
Jan 1, 06:01 PM
not only that, but none of the rumors really pointed to MWSF for a compact Macbook.
Agreed... I lust after it, but I have very low expectation of seeing it in January....
Nice work with the summary, Arn! :D
One other thing I think are interesting... We widely expect an iLife 07, but there have been basically no rumors related to how it will differ from iLife 06. I mean there're lots of obvious speculations, but....
Agreed... I lust after it, but I have very low expectation of seeing it in January....
Nice work with the summary, Arn! :D
One other thing I think are interesting... We widely expect an iLife 07, but there have been basically no rumors related to how it will differ from iLife 06. I mean there're lots of obvious speculations, but....
gkuhn
Feb 24, 05:45 AM
To be honest it may be more that those in Europe aren't looking for pure horse power as we seem to be wanting here in the US...living very well with the power of my "base" 4 banger 2003 Subaru Baja...
We don't have big blocks here in Germany. Compared to a gasoline engine, driving a diesel engine is much more fun (due to higher torque). More than 70% of BMW 7-series and Audi A8 are sold with a diesel engine. Even Porsche is offering diesel as an option for the Panamera.
Diesel engine is a nice combination of driving fun and fuel saving.
We don't have big blocks here in Germany. Compared to a gasoline engine, driving a diesel engine is much more fun (due to higher torque). More than 70% of BMW 7-series and Audi A8 are sold with a diesel engine. Even Porsche is offering diesel as an option for the Panamera.
Diesel engine is a nice combination of driving fun and fuel saving.
mrsir2009
Apr 19, 02:49 PM
Finally a Mac rumor instead of all those iDevice rumors!
lowbatteries
May 2, 06:12 PM
Well, considering the dialog box says "Are you sure you want to delete xxxx?" I think a "Yes" or "No" are the best possible choices.
No, those aren't the best possible choices. Those are probably the worst possible choice.
http://www.wakeinteractive.com/blog/view/yes_no_dialogs_are_confusing/
No, those aren't the best possible choices. Those are probably the worst possible choice.
http://www.wakeinteractive.com/blog/view/yes_no_dialogs_are_confusing/
DeSnousa
Apr 13, 11:59 PM
What computers do you have operating to get those points? You must be an IT admin or something surely they are not your computers?
milo
Nov 16, 02:44 PM
Thats the beauty of going Intel, you dont drop the price ? DELL, HP and the other competitors WILL.
I don't know if I'd expect that either. Has intel dropped the prices on dual core version yet? Or just introduced the quad core at higher prices?
I don't rip DVDs. I rip DVD Images created with Toast from EyeTV broadcast recordings. So it's not an extra step. If you mean why not export direct to mp4 from EyeTV the answer is because they look like C**p. You want a really good looking mp4 file, Handbrake is the only way to go IMHO. And the maximum quality Toast encode to DVD image is also the best way to provide Handbrake with a superior master to rip from.
You asked why anyone would use handbrake to rip from optical disk. I answered your question. People do it all the time, it's very common to rip DVDs.
I don't know if I'd expect that either. Has intel dropped the prices on dual core version yet? Or just introduced the quad core at higher prices?
I don't rip DVDs. I rip DVD Images created with Toast from EyeTV broadcast recordings. So it's not an extra step. If you mean why not export direct to mp4 from EyeTV the answer is because they look like C**p. You want a really good looking mp4 file, Handbrake is the only way to go IMHO. And the maximum quality Toast encode to DVD image is also the best way to provide Handbrake with a superior master to rip from.
You asked why anyone would use handbrake to rip from optical disk. I answered your question. People do it all the time, it's very common to rip DVDs.
claus1225
Apr 2, 07:35 PM
this commercial makes ipad seemed like it's only for kids.
kultschar
Mar 26, 09:43 AM
Would seem a good next step is to empower the ATV with this kind of processing power, while allowing the use of iphones/touches/ipads as controllers. Imaging HUDs and virtual controllers - or Garageband Hero?
Maybe you wouldn't have full length epic saga games (or maybe you would via streaming), but for $99 + $5-$10 a game, you have a serious competitor to traditional consoles.
Yup - this is surely the way the ATV is going to go or get the tech good enough to allow airplay thru the iPad for gaming, imagine not poss with the delay / lag currently
Maybe you wouldn't have full length epic saga games (or maybe you would via streaming), but for $99 + $5-$10 a game, you have a serious competitor to traditional consoles.
Yup - this is surely the way the ATV is going to go or get the tech good enough to allow airplay thru the iPad for gaming, imagine not poss with the delay / lag currently
Lollypop
Aug 7, 04:26 AM
Interesting read but im not sure about system wide Software update. It could be like opening a can of worms - although it wont smell and have soil on it, it could become a weakpoint for hackers/viruses etc. :(
If done the right way I dont see how it could be a problem. For one, the user has to explicitly add the 3rd party product, apple could also act as a intermediary or something, the update will only become available through software update once apple has tested it (can download it youself when released), and even though the update comes from the 3rd parties webserver the hash is stored on apples servers and the update HAS to be verified and compared to the hash.
edit: spelling
If done the right way I dont see how it could be a problem. For one, the user has to explicitly add the 3rd party product, apple could also act as a intermediary or something, the update will only become available through software update once apple has tested it (can download it youself when released), and even though the update comes from the 3rd parties webserver the hash is stored on apples servers and the update HAS to be verified and compared to the hash.
edit: spelling
pyramid6
Nov 28, 03:13 PM
I would argue, that MS success isn't because of it's OS, it's because of third party support.
Take Windows. It's horrible, but too many companies have too much software invested in Windows software.
Take the XBox, the X box was built on DirectX, which made it much easier to program than the PS2. So third party companies could program for the XBox.
The Zune is from scratch, no third party companies to help push it. No corprate ITs to demand you buy it and use it.
The Zune is what Microsoft is without its monopoly.
Take Windows. It's horrible, but too many companies have too much software invested in Windows software.
Take the XBox, the X box was built on DirectX, which made it much easier to program than the PS2. So third party companies could program for the XBox.
The Zune is from scratch, no third party companies to help push it. No corprate ITs to demand you buy it and use it.
The Zune is what Microsoft is without its monopoly.
No comments:
Post a Comment