WeegieMac
Mar 31, 02:37 AM
Can anyone with this installed confirm if the animation when opening Folders in Launchpad has been fixed? It was juddery as hell on the previous build.
And what's changed UI wise in this build?
Cheers.
And what's changed UI wise in this build?
Cheers.
corywoolf
Mar 29, 03:00 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
It aint hardcore, unless it's hexacore, mega-giga-byte son
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
It aint hardcore, unless it's hexacore, mega-giga-byte son
Popeye206
Apr 25, 09:27 AM
So stupid. Again, the press just making news out of no news. If they'd do their research, they'd know that all cell phones are tracked by tower pings. :rolleyes:
Apple just need to encrypt the file and all will be good. Otherwise, who cares???
Apple just need to encrypt the file and all will be good. Otherwise, who cares???
!� V �!
Apr 24, 11:05 PM
I would love to see an ultra high-res display sold by Apple. If they sold a 4K display for 2 grand I would certainly bite. Couple an awesome 4K display with 2 next gen video cards and you have yourself the best gaming machine ever built.
I can't wait. :D
You are talking :apple: pricing, then times that by 2 if not 3 and that is what they would sell a 4K display to you for. Think again, its not going to happen anytime soon. All this buzz is going to leave a lot of people disappointed since this is a new display model and nothing more. People do not sit a few inches from they computer monitor, they sit at a distance where you can barely notice the pixels on screen. Some screen have a poor quality compared to others and I know I have seen TN, PVA and IPS screens over my lifetime. I would prefer a 30" replacement matte LED as I am presently in the market for one.
I can't wait. :D
You are talking :apple: pricing, then times that by 2 if not 3 and that is what they would sell a 4K display to you for. Think again, its not going to happen anytime soon. All this buzz is going to leave a lot of people disappointed since this is a new display model and nothing more. People do not sit a few inches from they computer monitor, they sit at a distance where you can barely notice the pixels on screen. Some screen have a poor quality compared to others and I know I have seen TN, PVA and IPS screens over my lifetime. I would prefer a 30" replacement matte LED as I am presently in the market for one.
MCIowaRulz
Mar 30, 05:42 PM
Lion is ready to Roar (almost)
Getting it with the NEW iMac 2011!
Going to FINALLY replace my 867 Mhz PowerMac G4 running 10.4.11
Getting it with the NEW iMac 2011!
Going to FINALLY replace my 867 Mhz PowerMac G4 running 10.4.11
SockRolid
Apr 22, 01:02 PM
Last I heard, Apple was going to use non-Apple gear in their NC data center. That was just a rumor of course. But if there really are rackable Mac Pros on the way, I wonder if Apple could use them in NC...
geta
May 6, 08:06 AM
Apple only went with intel because IBM was never going to be able to make a G5 laptop chip. Why are people so closed minded when it comes to change?
its not about 'closed minded' , some ppl's working with the mac's for living, and not only playing games, watching movies D\L mp3.... !
im still working with PowerMac G5 - yap you heard right, G5 !
i've got no problem to finish my projects with it, but i do have a problem with all the new programs i need for my work.... they not support the old CPU :mad:
so now i need to upgrade to new MacPro that will cost me �3000 + the extra cards (the one's im using it PCI... so i need to upgrade them to PCI-e) coz of that.
so if they will move to the new CPU's, it will append all over agin..... couple years after the move, all the programs wont support intel based macs....
its not about 'closed minded' , some ppl's working with the mac's for living, and not only playing games, watching movies D\L mp3.... !
im still working with PowerMac G5 - yap you heard right, G5 !
i've got no problem to finish my projects with it, but i do have a problem with all the new programs i need for my work.... they not support the old CPU :mad:
so now i need to upgrade to new MacPro that will cost me �3000 + the extra cards (the one's im using it PCI... so i need to upgrade them to PCI-e) coz of that.
so if they will move to the new CPU's, it will append all over agin..... couple years after the move, all the programs wont support intel based macs....
ezekielrage_99
Aug 4, 10:31 AM
Personally I hope to see with the Intel change for Apple to update each line every 6 months.
jayducharme
Apr 24, 02:52 PM
I just checked my current desktop pictures folder. The images are 2560x1600, and they're only about 1 mb each. So it's really not much more of a leap to get to 3200.
MikhailT
May 7, 03:34 PM
MobileMe doesn't even work right now... how would they ever support way more users?
If you read, they said after a certain facility goes on, supposedly the new NC data center. It is very likely that there'll be a brand new version of MobileMe launching with it, along with iWork and Lala.
If you read, they said after a certain facility goes on, supposedly the new NC data center. It is very likely that there'll be a brand new version of MobileMe launching with it, along with iWork and Lala.
thogs_cave
Aug 11, 03:56 PM
Supposedly about 20% faster at the same clock speed, plus they are 64 bit, but the benefits of that in these machines is somewhat debatable. It's a nice upgrade, but not a huge one. [...] But that "goodness" mostly looks like greater memory access, which is a moot point in a machine with two ram slots. Most of the "goodness" isn't anything a laptop user will notice.
Which is really the point. It's not a quantum leap like the MacBook was over the iBook. (Having moved from one to the other, I can vouch for that.) I doubt I'd really notice the difference for 99.9% of what I do.
Which is really the point. It's not a quantum leap like the MacBook was over the iBook. (Having moved from one to the other, I can vouch for that.) I doubt I'd really notice the difference for 99.9% of what I do.
milo
Sep 11, 08:15 AM
It also leaves the MBP. If it is not updated, I will likely be driven into a mad frenzy where I buy some other brand of laptop. Honestly, the things Apple is forcing me to do...
It won't be updated tomorrow. But it will probably be updated as soon as later this week. Boo freaking hoo already, is it really that big a deal to wait a few days. And here's the big question: IS DELL EVEN SHIPPING MEROM LAPTOPS YET?
They're obviously going to have a movie store, but I probably would rarely if ever use it. I'm just hoping for new nanos (higher capacity for the same price would be fine with me) and airport video. If they just have those two I'll be freaking extatic. Now if only my home network is reliable enough to handle a video stream...
It won't be updated tomorrow. But it will probably be updated as soon as later this week. Boo freaking hoo already, is it really that big a deal to wait a few days. And here's the big question: IS DELL EVEN SHIPPING MEROM LAPTOPS YET?
They're obviously going to have a movie store, but I probably would rarely if ever use it. I'm just hoping for new nanos (higher capacity for the same price would be fine with me) and airport video. If they just have those two I'll be freaking extatic. Now if only my home network is reliable enough to handle a video stream...
hayesk
Apr 23, 11:08 PM
Wasn't that a big thing from the Leopard announcement?
No. Developers were told to get ready, but with the developer tools, you can see that many still aren't ready, including Apple.
It was never an announced feature for Leopard.
No. Developers were told to get ready, but with the developer tools, you can see that many still aren't ready, including Apple.
It was never an announced feature for Leopard.
Piggie
May 6, 07:14 AM
Why so negative on this news?
As has been said, time and time again, the consumers Apple are tar targeting don't care what's in the box. If the on-screen "user experience" is great then it matters not one jot what brand of CPU or any other parts Apple decides to use.
It's like having a great car and getting upset about the manufacturer of the engine components. This type of consumer does not care.
It works, it looks great, I'm happy.
As has been said, time and time again, the consumers Apple are tar targeting don't care what's in the box. If the on-screen "user experience" is great then it matters not one jot what brand of CPU or any other parts Apple decides to use.
It's like having a great car and getting upset about the manufacturer of the engine components. This type of consumer does not care.
It works, it looks great, I'm happy.
ciTiger
May 6, 07:44 AM
Ant there you have it folks! A new rumor theme that will last forever or until Apple changes architecture... lol
I do think that the battery would be the most to benefit from this but I don't think that it will happen any day soon. Even 13 is soon... But there might be one "new" product with it.. Maybe just one Macbook Air or something...
I do think that the battery would be the most to benefit from this but I don't think that it will happen any day soon. Even 13 is soon... But there might be one "new" product with it.. Maybe just one Macbook Air or something...
Plutonius
May 4, 04:30 PM
I'm glad we finally started moving :).
We might as well keep moving forward through the door at the end of the hallway.
We might as well keep moving forward through the door at the end of the hallway.
greatm31
Aug 3, 12:56 PM
Has Apple EVER released any consumer products at WWDC? It sounds like some people are going to be in for a real dissapointment when no iphone comes out. I thought they were trying to transition from releases at big conferences anyway.
Unspeaked
Aug 11, 01:41 PM
Man, I tell ya... 2 years+ ago when I wanted a new laptop, that's ALL I ever heard... I think Apple should build a one-off G5 laptop just to appease us crazy people in here, LOL! It would be an awesome tip-of-the-hat to us, don'tcha think? ;)
Yeah, and it would really put all those heat issues MB and MBP owners are complaining about in perspective...
Yeah, and it would really put all those heat issues MB and MBP owners are complaining about in perspective...
HecubusPro
Sep 16, 11:53 AM
Congratulations! You have just provided a second independent source of unnatural delay proving Apple is already manufacturing Merom C2D MBPs and that 17" models will ship behind 15" models by a week Monday October 2.
As long as they at least announce the 17" MBP C2D, I'll be happy, even if it isn't immediately available.
As long as they at least announce the 17" MBP C2D, I'll be happy, even if it isn't immediately available.
ariza910
Aug 11, 12:43 PM
Yes, actualy all the worlds puppies will die
Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
thegreatluke
Aug 7, 05:29 PM
So if I want a mid-range tower, I can configured it to have less RAM, a smaller HD and a completely useless graphics card, and still come in $200-300 more than a comparable machine from Dell/Gateway/etc.? Why can't Apple sell me a desktop with 2GB RAM stock and a 250GB HD for less than two grand?
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
I'm SO angry too! I'm seriously going to be PISSED OFF until Apple offers a 50 GHz workstation with 32 GB of RAM and a 4 TB hard drive for free!
:rolleyes:
This and the MacBook are probably Apple's most competetively-priced computers.
Go ahead - buy a Mac Pro. When you get it, send me the useless graphics card. I wouldn't mind.
This is a good question. What happens if I put my x1900xt from my PC into one of these? Would it run under windows? If it would, then it should run under OS X with the correct driver, because it wouldn't be a hardware issue.
I am willing to bet that, at least for the graphics cards with mac specific drivers, you could buy the PC equivalent. If you branch out to different model numbers, you might run into problems.
Anyone have a MacPro they could lend me to test out my theory? :-)
Most PCI-express graphics cards would work in a Mac Pro without a problem.
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
I'm SO angry too! I'm seriously going to be PISSED OFF until Apple offers a 50 GHz workstation with 32 GB of RAM and a 4 TB hard drive for free!
:rolleyes:
This and the MacBook are probably Apple's most competetively-priced computers.
Go ahead - buy a Mac Pro. When you get it, send me the useless graphics card. I wouldn't mind.
This is a good question. What happens if I put my x1900xt from my PC into one of these? Would it run under windows? If it would, then it should run under OS X with the correct driver, because it wouldn't be a hardware issue.
I am willing to bet that, at least for the graphics cards with mac specific drivers, you could buy the PC equivalent. If you branch out to different model numbers, you might run into problems.
Anyone have a MacPro they could lend me to test out my theory? :-)
Most PCI-express graphics cards would work in a Mac Pro without a problem.
Akme
Mar 30, 08:30 PM
Can someone confirm if this preview can be installed on MBP 2011?
Thanks
Installed fine on mine.
Thanks
Installed fine on mine.
Rocketman
Nov 26, 06:46 PM
Microphone
Whoever named a microphone "micro" in the 60's needs 1000 people to buy him a beer.
Rocketman
Send it via the internet!
Whoever named a microphone "micro" in the 60's needs 1000 people to buy him a beer.
Rocketman
Send it via the internet!
nmrrjw66
Apr 15, 07:17 PM
:mad::mad::mad: I am seriously starting to get pissed.
9 Things the Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes (http://www.wweek.com/portland/print-article-17350-print.html)
It's a long article so here are some excerpts;
3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.
John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.
In Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income�not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.
WTF does someone even do with 9 billion dollars?
9 Things the Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes (http://www.wweek.com/portland/print-article-17350-print.html)
It's a long article so here are some excerpts;
3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.
John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.
In Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income�not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.
WTF does someone even do with 9 billion dollars?