~Shard~
Aug 11, 10:25 AM
I really hope Apple comes out with a phone that's an awesome phone, music player, and smart phone... Is that asking too much?
Yes, I agree, it would have to be an iPod as well for all intents and purposes. And please Apple, make it a good quality phone - don't make it like those RAZRs which look cool but are crappy otherwise. I don't think I have read more negative reviews on a cell phone than I have for the RAZR.
Yes, I agree, it would have to be an iPod as well for all intents and purposes. And please Apple, make it a good quality phone - don't make it like those RAZRs which look cool but are crappy otherwise. I don't think I have read more negative reviews on a cell phone than I have for the RAZR.
59031
Jul 14, 03:04 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
NJRonbo
Jun 15, 09:02 AM
Those of you still looking to order from the Shack...
The latest I am hearing this morning from at least
one store is that preorders start at 1pm.
...however they are not calling it preorders. They
take down your name, phone and email and check
the system. No deposit.
I am being told that you ARE guaranteed a phone
with this reservation.
The latest I am hearing this morning from at least
one store is that preorders start at 1pm.
...however they are not calling it preorders. They
take down your name, phone and email and check
the system. No deposit.
I am being told that you ARE guaranteed a phone
with this reservation.
peterdevries
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
Your type of apathy in the long term will do more harm than good.
There is a big difference between voluntarily and involuntarily giving out personal information and that's what was at stake here.
Apple admitted error - it's ok - you can admit it might not have been in the best interest of consumers too. Apple won't come and take your iPhone away.
Well said, but as Apple has already stated they are not collecting this information for other use than speeding up location. Considering the fact that cases against Apple are already underway, I trust the information they released today to be accurate. It would be foolish to mislead customers while proceedings have started.
Many people that cried outrage are actually ignoring more obvious privacy issues: twitter, foursquare and facebook status updates, and eg. the announcement today that TomTom actually actively sells location and speed data from drivers to the police, to aid in the strategic placement of speed cameras.
There is a big difference between voluntarily and involuntarily giving out personal information and that's what was at stake here.
Apple admitted error - it's ok - you can admit it might not have been in the best interest of consumers too. Apple won't come and take your iPhone away.
Well said, but as Apple has already stated they are not collecting this information for other use than speeding up location. Considering the fact that cases against Apple are already underway, I trust the information they released today to be accurate. It would be foolish to mislead customers while proceedings have started.
Many people that cried outrage are actually ignoring more obvious privacy issues: twitter, foursquare and facebook status updates, and eg. the announcement today that TomTom actually actively sells location and speed data from drivers to the police, to aid in the strategic placement of speed cameras.
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 11:46 AM
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
Astro7x
Apr 7, 02:54 PM
It's easy. The average person isn't watching blu-rays on a 27 inch or less screen. They get them for their big 50-60 inch TVs. And the sales of Macs are rising despite the lack. True professionals do what is needed to get the job done. Including buying a stand alone drive and 3rd party software if the simple menus in DVD Studio Pro are not enough
I disagree. I would argue that the reason people are not watching Blurays on their computers is because they CAN'T watch them on a computer. Blowing up a regular DVD to full screen on an Apple 27 inch cinema display looks horrible, and the alternative is a highly compressed H264 that looks amazing in comparison. I guarantee that if every Mac shipped with a Bluray drive, I'd have more clients requesting Bluray discs. Clients seem to love DVDs because they are dummy proof. Bluray? The smart ones will have to wait to watch it until they get home where they can put it on their PS3 or something. The others will stick it in their MacBook and then send me an E-mail saying that the DVD they received doesn't work.
Apple has to see financial benefits in not including Bluray in their computers. The professionals will add a drive to their MacPros so they can burn them. But consumers? Apple would no doubt take somewhat of a hit in profit for every Bluray drive that goes into a Mac. They'd also rather sell the HD media through the iTunes Store and make a profit there too. I'll admit it, one of the reasons I haven't switched completely over to buying Bluray Discs is because I can't watch them on my Laptop.
I disagree. I would argue that the reason people are not watching Blurays on their computers is because they CAN'T watch them on a computer. Blowing up a regular DVD to full screen on an Apple 27 inch cinema display looks horrible, and the alternative is a highly compressed H264 that looks amazing in comparison. I guarantee that if every Mac shipped with a Bluray drive, I'd have more clients requesting Bluray discs. Clients seem to love DVDs because they are dummy proof. Bluray? The smart ones will have to wait to watch it until they get home where they can put it on their PS3 or something. The others will stick it in their MacBook and then send me an E-mail saying that the DVD they received doesn't work.
Apple has to see financial benefits in not including Bluray in their computers. The professionals will add a drive to their MacPros so they can burn them. But consumers? Apple would no doubt take somewhat of a hit in profit for every Bluray drive that goes into a Mac. They'd also rather sell the HD media through the iTunes Store and make a profit there too. I'll admit it, one of the reasons I haven't switched completely over to buying Bluray Discs is because I can't watch them on my Laptop.
LanPhantom
Mar 31, 02:35 PM
The biggest advantage always given for Android over iOS is that it's "open source." Well, clearly that's not the case anymore. So, I can't think of any other reason to use Android over iOS, or even Windows 7. It looks like junk, and it's just a cheap ripoff of iOS.
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
Bleubird2
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
Its not about being a criminal or paranoid. This data is for the sole purpose of marketers to sell us crap.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
It reminds me of a line from Futurama:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
I'm old-fashined I guess because I have no interest in having a smartphone in the first place. I just have a standard flip-phone. By owning a smartphone, you are always going to be faced with privacy issues because if you are using facebook/twitter and whatever else you are using to broadcasting your information. If you don't want advertisers to use your information, stop using social networking sites and search engines and stop being connected.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
It reminds me of a line from Futurama:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
I'm old-fashined I guess because I have no interest in having a smartphone in the first place. I just have a standard flip-phone. By owning a smartphone, you are always going to be faced with privacy issues because if you are using facebook/twitter and whatever else you are using to broadcasting your information. If you don't want advertisers to use your information, stop using social networking sites and search engines and stop being connected.
orthodoc
Nov 28, 08:22 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
jaxstate
Aug 25, 04:17 PM
No it didn't.
I have had no luck today getting two batteries replaced. I enter their serial numbers and it tells me they are not valid serials, even though they fall within the range. When I call the support number and hit 5, i just get a busy tone and it hangs up on me.
I have had no luck today getting two batteries replaced. I enter their serial numbers and it tells me they are not valid serials, even though they fall within the range. When I call the support number and hit 5, i just get a busy tone and it hangs up on me.
OceanView
Apr 11, 01:46 PM
I can live with it if they include a larger screen, 4G, Larger Capacity and the A5. Possibly 1GB RAM. That would be sweet :)
Leoff
Sep 19, 07:28 AM
Sorry but I've heard this so many times it gets pretty annoying. Dont assume to know what ppl want to use their Macbooks for. I want to use it for music production which can be very intensive on the processor, other people for graphics etc where a few seconds shaved off processing times when added up many times can make quite a difference to productivity.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
wpotere
Apr 28, 08:11 AM
Sad, pathetic, misguided
Speaking of which...
Speaking of which...
Cameront9
Aug 7, 05:02 PM
Like the whole 3ghz thing?
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
In this Case, steve is only dependent on his own company to make it come true.
And did anyone else laugh today when they showed the top of the line Mac Pro--at 3Ghz?
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
In this Case, steve is only dependent on his own company to make it come true.
And did anyone else laugh today when they showed the top of the line Mac Pro--at 3Ghz?
Huntn
Aug 16, 10:20 AM
As I am newly familiar with Need For Sped: Shift. How would you guys compare the two games?
I don't know if it is my imagination but some of the racing demos I've tried, the cars seem to skid out of control relatively easily. I'm wondering if this is a characteristic of "realsim" in a racing game?
I don't know if it is my imagination but some of the racing demos I've tried, the cars seem to skid out of control relatively easily. I'm wondering if this is a characteristic of "realsim" in a racing game?
Chris Bangle
Aug 11, 11:36 AM
I agree with that
Why thank you, I was expecting to reported for being rude. Atleast somebody agrees with me.
but the main reason i wouldnt buy a nano is beacause the sides are tooo square, i prefer the sides of the mini.
Why thank you, I was expecting to reported for being rude. Atleast somebody agrees with me.
but the main reason i wouldnt buy a nano is beacause the sides are tooo square, i prefer the sides of the mini.
manu chao
Aug 27, 05:31 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
Don't blame Intel, blame Apple for not using the ULV versions of the Core Duo chips. There are other manufacturers which use them (otherwise it would not make much sense for Intel to offer them).
However, the battery life of these machines is maybe in the order of six hours only, for once because the screen, HD etc. still need the same amount of power. Making the screen smaller, using Intel graphics, maybe even a 1.8" HD, you can reduce power consumption further, most often manufacturers also reduce battery size at the same time to make the laptops lightweight, preventing you to see battery life numbers of ten hours.
Moreover, reports about machines using the ULV versions (and sometimes 1.8" HDs) do complain about the performance.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 02:37 PM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes, which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
Who said Apple created the first GUI.
Jobs himself credits Xerox for their GUI. :rolleyes:
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes, which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
Who said Apple created the first GUI.
Jobs himself credits Xerox for their GUI. :rolleyes:
iRobby
Apr 25, 03:22 PM
This is RIDICULOUS! if you switch off location services your location is still being tracked by the mobile phone companies everytime your phone makes a connection with one of their masts, which happens everytime you move cell. Oh and this happens with every phone, otherwise they wouldn't work.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 8, 02:30 AM
I heard galaxy tab is better than Ipad. Is it true??
Technically it is a safer product. No one is going to mug you for your galaxy tab.
Technically it is a safer product. No one is going to mug you for your galaxy tab.
PCClone
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
I haven't read this lawsuit, so I don't know if they're claiming things that aren't true... but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
skunk
Mar 3, 01:28 PM
But, but, but we'll have nobody to argue with... :(
steadysignal
Apr 11, 12:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I dont want to wait :(
who does? but it will be worth it...
I dont want to wait :(
who does? but it will be worth it...
mwswami
Jul 21, 10:20 AM
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.
I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.
Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.
I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.
Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.