duction
Apr 20, 11:28 AM
blah, will upgrade next year in that case :)
kalsta
May 6, 11:52 AM
Well they are not really french:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries
Right. That's the irony of it.
Or megaWatts. Look into large generators and data center infrastructure.
Okay. 'No one' was a hyperbole.
Gosh, I can't get anything past you guys today! ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries
Right. That's the irony of it.
Or megaWatts. Look into large generators and data center infrastructure.
Okay. 'No one' was a hyperbole.
Gosh, I can't get anything past you guys today! ;)
Tastic Bycrom
Apr 21, 02:32 PM
I hope they call it the MacServe :D
shigzeo
Apr 24, 10:24 PM
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
It makes no difference at all. If the video card can render the 2D graphics at native retina resolution, that is all that matters. Keeping the same ratio of X and Y pixels means that the game (as has always been the case) determines what resolution you play in. I doubt we'll see games go that high for at least a few years.
The high resolution is great for everything else: reading, editing photos, etc., but requires a graphics card that can output very high 2D resolution with no corollary retardation.
Games are completely different and shouldn't be a concern by any serious gamer, at all. They simply don't relate to the monitor's resolution as much as they do the ratio of x and y pixels in order to keep lower resolutions from distorting.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
It makes no difference at all. If the video card can render the 2D graphics at native retina resolution, that is all that matters. Keeping the same ratio of X and Y pixels means that the game (as has always been the case) determines what resolution you play in. I doubt we'll see games go that high for at least a few years.
The high resolution is great for everything else: reading, editing photos, etc., but requires a graphics card that can output very high 2D resolution with no corollary retardation.
Games are completely different and shouldn't be a concern by any serious gamer, at all. They simply don't relate to the monitor's resolution as much as they do the ratio of x and y pixels in order to keep lower resolutions from distorting.
hehe299792458
Apr 10, 07:00 AM
This is the longest thread I've seen on this forum that's arguing over a matter of style... I'm sad
callmemike20
Apr 18, 08:18 PM
What constitutes being a "last resort"?
It makes more sense to me to put in clauses that reverse tax increases once a goal has been reached.
Use all the tools in the tool chest to solve the problem.
You clause is a great idea, but we all know that taxes never go away. Wasn't the income tax supposed to be temporary also? Once the government gets their hands on more money, they become less worried about adjusting their spending because the problem is basically fixed (in their minds) due to the additional income.
You are right about using all the tools available to solve the problem. So let me recommend something. It's basically a reversal of your clause. The clause would allow a taxation adjustment (which would be predetermined) once 20% of spending has been cut (or some other amount).
An example (with simplified numbers):
Government Income: $1 billion
Government Spending: $1.50 billion
Total government debt: $5 billion
Defense Spending: $ 300 million (20%)
Social Security: $300 million (20%)
Police/Fire Spending: $200 million (about 13%)
Medical: $250 million (about 17%)
Other: $450 million (30%)
Now, let's say an agreement was made that would increase tax income to $1.2 billion, but in order for those taxes to be effective, the spending must be cut to $1.1 billion ( $0.1 billion difference for miscalculations and to pay off debt). So, each of those departments should still obtain the same amount of funding as % of government income, so 20% of $1.1 billion would be $220 million, which is a reduction of 80 million for defense.
Go down the line and do this for every department. If it doesn't work, then cut other programs to provide adequate funding the the extremely necessary departments that need it.
It makes more sense to me to put in clauses that reverse tax increases once a goal has been reached.
Use all the tools in the tool chest to solve the problem.
You clause is a great idea, but we all know that taxes never go away. Wasn't the income tax supposed to be temporary also? Once the government gets their hands on more money, they become less worried about adjusting their spending because the problem is basically fixed (in their minds) due to the additional income.
You are right about using all the tools available to solve the problem. So let me recommend something. It's basically a reversal of your clause. The clause would allow a taxation adjustment (which would be predetermined) once 20% of spending has been cut (or some other amount).
An example (with simplified numbers):
Government Income: $1 billion
Government Spending: $1.50 billion
Total government debt: $5 billion
Defense Spending: $ 300 million (20%)
Social Security: $300 million (20%)
Police/Fire Spending: $200 million (about 13%)
Medical: $250 million (about 17%)
Other: $450 million (30%)
Now, let's say an agreement was made that would increase tax income to $1.2 billion, but in order for those taxes to be effective, the spending must be cut to $1.1 billion ( $0.1 billion difference for miscalculations and to pay off debt). So, each of those departments should still obtain the same amount of funding as % of government income, so 20% of $1.1 billion would be $220 million, which is a reduction of 80 million for defense.
Go down the line and do this for every department. If it doesn't work, then cut other programs to provide adequate funding the the extremely necessary departments that need it.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 08:14 PM
I wouldn't mind having Apple sell them (and I'm guessing they will to some degree), but we also have to think in terms of the market as is. If I can get a free phone through my provider every x years, I'm going to do that instead of buying outside the company (even if it is crap). If I can get an upgrade for between $50 and $300, I might consider it when I'm in the store renewing my plan. Apple can gain presence only by going through established channels; it's not to say that you won't be able to buy one in an Apple store, just that consumers who like to do comparison shopping when they get their phones might like to see an iPhone in a TMobile/Verizon/3rd party carrier store.
I'm of two minds on this. First, I think Apple would have a problem with cell phone providers who wouldn't want to extend service to hardware not purchased through them. Why should they? They're not getting a kickback on the phone. And besides, these people buying their phones from outside sources are just a minority of users, anyhow. A minority they may feel fully capable and even justified in ignoring.
The second thought is: how many people here remember when car dealerships were exclusive dealerships? That is, a Pontiac dealer only sold Pontiacs, a Mercury dealer only sold Mercurys, a Ford dealership only sold Fords, etc. All of that began to fade away in the mid-1980s. Now you have dealerships that sell multiple brands. My point here being that this whole "exclusive" and "main squeeze" rationale used in the cell phone industry is just as carved in stone as the car dealership thing "was".
I'm of two minds on this. First, I think Apple would have a problem with cell phone providers who wouldn't want to extend service to hardware not purchased through them. Why should they? They're not getting a kickback on the phone. And besides, these people buying their phones from outside sources are just a minority of users, anyhow. A minority they may feel fully capable and even justified in ignoring.
The second thought is: how many people here remember when car dealerships were exclusive dealerships? That is, a Pontiac dealer only sold Pontiacs, a Mercury dealer only sold Mercurys, a Ford dealership only sold Fords, etc. All of that began to fade away in the mid-1980s. Now you have dealerships that sell multiple brands. My point here being that this whole "exclusive" and "main squeeze" rationale used in the cell phone industry is just as carved in stone as the car dealership thing "was".
keruah
Nov 2, 04:11 PM
We use Sophos at work and love it! Can't wait to start using it at home too.
can't wait... to start using an antivirus?
can't wait... to start using an antivirus?
crobi
Apr 23, 04:42 PM
And what about a big resolution to support big TV screen. With an airplay like to output the mac screen to the plasma, LCD, LED or DEL TV.
.png "sensors-and-actuators-b-impact")
cube
May 6, 06:41 AM
But until Intel releases technology using the new transistors people dumped arm stocks for essentially hype,(?) Which is why I'm surprised.
I'm not surprised about people getting overhyped. Just look the "3D" thread here.
I'm not surprised about people getting overhyped. Just look the "3D" thread here.
xpipe
Apr 6, 05:36 PM
I just bought the Xoom a few days ago. I had considered purchasing an iPad 2, but instead of more-or-less duplicating my previous iPad purchase, I thought I'd try something new. I have mixed feelings, but overall I am quite happy with the purchase.
The Xoom hardware seems sturdier to me, but that could just be in my head, and the device feels more powerful to me. The Xoom has a larger, higher-resolution display than the iPad, but the iPad has a much higher quality display. That's an issue for a device that is, essentially, one big screen. One aspect in particular that seems far superior to iOS on the iPad is web browsing, which is likely my most frequently-used feature of ether device. The Xoom blows either iPad away in this regard. It offers near desktop-speed performance in its included browser, with none of the checkerboards and frequent page reloads of the iPad. I'm not sure if this (page reloads) is primarily due to the greater RAM, or the fast speed of the browser; perhaps it reloads so fast it doesn't matter. I don't want to restart the whole flash debate, but I watched quite a bit of flash-based internet video and the device didn't get hot nor did the battery take a disproportionate hit. In fact, the battery life has really been great...two very long evenings of heavy usage, and there's plenty to spare.
Multitasking is also quite nice. One of the first apps I downloaded was a (free) great radio app, and as I was listening to the radio I intuitively started web browsing and going back and forth between a few other apps and it wasn't until I received and replied to a message from a friend that it occurred to me that I was having a really cool and full mobile computing experience. I feel that as iOS and Android (Honeycomb) stand right now, Android offers a lot more potential to serve my needs. To realize this potential, though, they need apps and Apple dominates in this area...not only in quantity but in the overall polish of their top-tier apps. Apple's iOS itself is likewise more polished, and the Android team definitely needs to iron out some of the wrinkles. Not showstoppers, mind you, but Apple clearly had the more mature, stable OS.
So now I have two tablets. I have two computers at my desk, an iMac and a PC, and I can use both of those, but I can't quite figure out how two tablets figure into the equation. I know I'm more excited by the Xoom than I was after I first used the iPad, and I was quite excited by the iPad. Time will tell, but I'm currently leaning more towards the Xoom.
The Xoom hardware seems sturdier to me, but that could just be in my head, and the device feels more powerful to me. The Xoom has a larger, higher-resolution display than the iPad, but the iPad has a much higher quality display. That's an issue for a device that is, essentially, one big screen. One aspect in particular that seems far superior to iOS on the iPad is web browsing, which is likely my most frequently-used feature of ether device. The Xoom blows either iPad away in this regard. It offers near desktop-speed performance in its included browser, with none of the checkerboards and frequent page reloads of the iPad. I'm not sure if this (page reloads) is primarily due to the greater RAM, or the fast speed of the browser; perhaps it reloads so fast it doesn't matter. I don't want to restart the whole flash debate, but I watched quite a bit of flash-based internet video and the device didn't get hot nor did the battery take a disproportionate hit. In fact, the battery life has really been great...two very long evenings of heavy usage, and there's plenty to spare.
Multitasking is also quite nice. One of the first apps I downloaded was a (free) great radio app, and as I was listening to the radio I intuitively started web browsing and going back and forth between a few other apps and it wasn't until I received and replied to a message from a friend that it occurred to me that I was having a really cool and full mobile computing experience. I feel that as iOS and Android (Honeycomb) stand right now, Android offers a lot more potential to serve my needs. To realize this potential, though, they need apps and Apple dominates in this area...not only in quantity but in the overall polish of their top-tier apps. Apple's iOS itself is likewise more polished, and the Android team definitely needs to iron out some of the wrinkles. Not showstoppers, mind you, but Apple clearly had the more mature, stable OS.
So now I have two tablets. I have two computers at my desk, an iMac and a PC, and I can use both of those, but I can't quite figure out how two tablets figure into the equation. I know I'm more excited by the Xoom than I was after I first used the iPad, and I was quite excited by the iPad. Time will tell, but I'm currently leaning more towards the Xoom.
shawnce
Aug 2, 12:05 PM
Let me get this straight. The Keynote is on Monday not Tuesday. I thought the keynote was Tuesday just like MWSF.
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/schedules/monday_am.html
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/schedules/monday_am.html
navguy
Jan 4, 10:12 AM
There are numerous Youtube videos using the car kit, some that are dash mounted, and it seems to make no difference. I understand its more of a "line of sight" issue so as long as the mount is visible to the sky you're fine. I get mine by Fedex today and I'm mounting it to the dash so I'll let you know how it all works for me.
thanks for the feedback. that would be great.
some of the behavior of the mount that i'm noticing (by using the TomTom car kit free app) is that from a cold start, the mount takes about 20-30 seconds to achieve a satellite fix ... seems longer than the 3GS which makes sense because the mount doesn't have assisted GPS (cellular triangulation help) ...
BUT i'm curious whether the satnav apps are waiting on the mount's fix or taking first availalble? ... i would hope they'd wait on mount since ultimately it should have more precision since it's called 'enhanced' GPS, but how can you tell for sure?
one thing i've tried is to remove the iPhone from the mount after navigating and see if it disrupts the GPS signal w/in the satnav app ... i would expect there to be a switch over to internal GPS and see a small disruption ... but i'm not getting a disrupted signal ... can't be sure one way or the other
thanks for the feedback. that would be great.
some of the behavior of the mount that i'm noticing (by using the TomTom car kit free app) is that from a cold start, the mount takes about 20-30 seconds to achieve a satellite fix ... seems longer than the 3GS which makes sense because the mount doesn't have assisted GPS (cellular triangulation help) ...
BUT i'm curious whether the satnav apps are waiting on the mount's fix or taking first availalble? ... i would hope they'd wait on mount since ultimately it should have more precision since it's called 'enhanced' GPS, but how can you tell for sure?
one thing i've tried is to remove the iPhone from the mount after navigating and see if it disrupts the GPS signal w/in the satnav app ... i would expect there to be a switch over to internal GPS and see a small disruption ... but i'm not getting a disrupted signal ... can't be sure one way or the other
JackAxe
Apr 23, 10:44 PM
Doesn't OS X already support displays up to 2560x1600? Afaik that was the resolution of Apple's own (now discontinued) 30" display and the resolution of most, if not all, 30" displays available at the moment. 3200x2000 is nothing but the next rung on the ladder. This is just Apple future-proofing their OS a bit. If they release anything in the short term it will most likely be a big-ass iMac or a bigger Apple Display, NOT a laptop running that resolution. Just saying...
Yep. My Apple 30", which I bought in 2005 is 2560 x 1600. Oh, and my MacBook Pro 17", which runs at 1900 x 1200 can drive it as a secondary display. So could my older 17".
Here's something most people don't know. IBM created a 200 PPI display back in 2000. Veiwsonic later released it as their VP2290b, which ran at 3200 x 2400. I recall when it came out, that it was over $6k. It required 2 DVI cables to drive it, since at that time, Dual-DVI ports were not available.
Yep. My Apple 30", which I bought in 2005 is 2560 x 1600. Oh, and my MacBook Pro 17", which runs at 1900 x 1200 can drive it as a secondary display. So could my older 17".
Here's something most people don't know. IBM created a 200 PPI display back in 2000. Veiwsonic later released it as their VP2290b, which ran at 3200 x 2400. I recall when it came out, that it was over $6k. It required 2 DVI cables to drive it, since at that time, Dual-DVI ports were not available.
rjohnstone
Apr 18, 03:40 PM
The iPhone 1 was announced before the Prada phone. Patent dates showed iPhone implementation of a capacitive touchscreen phone at least a year before LG showed their Prada phone in 2006. The Prada shipped in small shipments before the iPhone, so that is their only claim that it was technically released before the iPhone even though real shipments occurred months later. Technically, if Apple wanted to, they could have sued LG.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
Irrelevant argument from a "look and feel" standpoint as NOBODY outside of Apple knew what the iPhone looked like.
So either the design was logical or LG was frikkin clairvoyant and could see into the future.
The patent filings are moot.
Loading apps are moot as the original iPhone didn't permit that either.
The virtual qwerty keyboard existed before the iPhone as well.
Seriously do 10 seconds of research before posting.
What Apple did was made a phone that contained a lot of EXISTING technology and wrapped it into a single package.
And did a good job doing it too.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
Irrelevant. Most of the tech in the iPhone predates it.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
Irrelevant argument from a "look and feel" standpoint as NOBODY outside of Apple knew what the iPhone looked like.
So either the design was logical or LG was frikkin clairvoyant and could see into the future.
The patent filings are moot.
Loading apps are moot as the original iPhone didn't permit that either.
The virtual qwerty keyboard existed before the iPhone as well.
Seriously do 10 seconds of research before posting.
What Apple did was made a phone that contained a lot of EXISTING technology and wrapped it into a single package.
And did a good job doing it too.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
Irrelevant. Most of the tech in the iPhone predates it.
joelypolly
Jul 30, 03:05 AM
Given that Apple has always went for the mid market components I don't think this phone will appeal to the phone nerds/freaks like me. But then us being freaks don't represent much of the market.
Personally I would love to see Apple pair up with Sharp to do a phone.
Currently I would say sharp has the best high-end mobile on the market that isn't symbian/WMP. You can't bet a phone with a 3.2MP camera, 2x optical zoom and a 640X480 screen. It's a really pity that if Apple brings out anything it will be 1.3MP camera, no zoom and prob a 320x240 screen... but I guess at least it will look good...
Most of the really good mobile phones are restricted to Japan only so hopefully apple can bring some of the cool stuff around the world.
Personally I would love to see Apple pair up with Sharp to do a phone.
Currently I would say sharp has the best high-end mobile on the market that isn't symbian/WMP. You can't bet a phone with a 3.2MP camera, 2x optical zoom and a 640X480 screen. It's a really pity that if Apple brings out anything it will be 1.3MP camera, no zoom and prob a 320x240 screen... but I guess at least it will look good...
Most of the really good mobile phones are restricted to Japan only so hopefully apple can bring some of the cool stuff around the world.
cecildk9999
Nov 22, 05:50 AM
A single network might be interested if they feel that the features in the Apple phone will gain them new customers.
End-users would still be able to buy a phone separately and use their existing SIM of course. But as this is so different to the entrenched practice in the UK, it would have to be a very good device.
I think T-Mobile might fit this bill, at least in the US. I remember seeing a story here earlier in the year where T-Mobile said its vision was aligned with Apple (but not necessarily a partnership; abc article here (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2537247)). T-Mobile wants to win customers, and a sleek new phone that's easy to use may get some real good word of mouth. Of course, Apple can still sell the phone separately, but the key would be to get all of the carriers to pick it up. If a T-Mobile pairing could build a base and generate some strong 'switcher' sales, other companies may want to jump on the bandwagon as quickly as possible.
End-users would still be able to buy a phone separately and use their existing SIM of course. But as this is so different to the entrenched practice in the UK, it would have to be a very good device.
I think T-Mobile might fit this bill, at least in the US. I remember seeing a story here earlier in the year where T-Mobile said its vision was aligned with Apple (but not necessarily a partnership; abc article here (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2537247)). T-Mobile wants to win customers, and a sleek new phone that's easy to use may get some real good word of mouth. Of course, Apple can still sell the phone separately, but the key would be to get all of the carriers to pick it up. If a T-Mobile pairing could build a base and generate some strong 'switcher' sales, other companies may want to jump on the bandwagon as quickly as possible.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 5, 01:05 PM
Not surprised! Toyota should not take it!
emotion
Aug 2, 11:02 AM
I like this guy. He's being reasonable. However, I'd bet that Apple does NOT update any other Macs to Core 2. Yet. Save that for Expo Paris.
Don't forget that apple dont just compete with themselves but other PC manufacturers now, and that release schedule would put them way behind. I expect speedbump/updated MBP and iMac at least. Probably on a random Tuesday soon.
Don't forget that apple dont just compete with themselves but other PC manufacturers now, and that release schedule would put them way behind. I expect speedbump/updated MBP and iMac at least. Probably on a random Tuesday soon.
Bonte
Aug 7, 03:20 PM
wow, it took a full three (3) posts till somebody complains about the GPU. that seems to be the only constant thing that survived even the intel transition.:D
Are these specific Mac GPU's with Mac roms or can we finally use a selection of PC GPU's? If so then the base GPU isn't an issue, just use it for the second screen.
Are these specific Mac GPU's with Mac roms or can we finally use a selection of PC GPU's? If so then the base GPU isn't an issue, just use it for the second screen.
balamw
Apr 10, 06:13 PM
Also, Balamw I posted almost exactly what you just said (post above this). See post 179.
Yeah, that's why I said I was repeating. It was probably also mentioned elsewhere too. I know it came up in my earlier post that linked to Wikipedia as well. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12362611&postcount=52
I resorted to Wolfram Alpha back in post #18. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12362161&postcount=18 :p
B
Yeah, that's why I said I was repeating. It was probably also mentioned elsewhere too. I know it came up in my earlier post that linked to Wikipedia as well. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12362611&postcount=52
I resorted to Wolfram Alpha back in post #18. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12362161&postcount=18 :p
B
blow45
May 6, 04:45 AM
Apple even made the bold move to take ARM processor design in house with the acquisition P.A. Semi and Intrinsity.
That's just shoddy reporting. Apple did have a lot of arm brains in their vslr teams, they just added talent, nothing more, nothing less. And A4 and 5 are rumoured to be more the work of the existing team, than anyone from pa semi.
That's just shoddy reporting. Apple did have a lot of arm brains in their vslr teams, they just added talent, nothing more, nothing less. And A4 and 5 are rumoured to be more the work of the existing team, than anyone from pa semi.
Popeye206
Apr 5, 03:34 PM
Allowing this, Apple would have set a presidence, so yes, I understand why Apple asked for this to be stopped... Tomorrow company 'x' would be releasing their JB app. Adobe will be releasing Flash on to Cydia LOL.
Since we are talking in the context of smartphones, we should compare smartphone developer licenses, and not others. Apple vs Apple not Apple vs Lemon.
You can nit-pick it all you want. $99 is nothing for a quality program like what Apple offers to developers. Plus, you can still get the SDK for free. You can still develop for free. It's just if you want "in" on the AppStore and other resources, you pay. So... again... what's the beef?
Since we are talking in the context of smartphones, we should compare smartphone developer licenses, and not others. Apple vs Apple not Apple vs Lemon.
You can nit-pick it all you want. $99 is nothing for a quality program like what Apple offers to developers. Plus, you can still get the SDK for free. You can still develop for free. It's just if you want "in" on the AppStore and other resources, you pay. So... again... what's the beef?
badcrumble
Mar 30, 08:10 PM
The new iCal is hideous. This "metaphor" crap is awful, and reeks of Mac OS 9. Make things look sleek and modern like the new Mail app, please.
No comments:
Post a Comment