hypmatize
Jan 31, 04:56 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5401263439_a17e9bec6c_o.jpg
- MacBook Air
- iPad
- iTouch
- Apple Accessories
Am I part of the Apple Family Now?
Is that an antec 900 under the desk?
- MacBook Air
- iPad
- iTouch
- Apple Accessories
Am I part of the Apple Family Now?
Is that an antec 900 under the desk?
ZoomZoomZoom
Oct 24, 09:08 AM
Good thing I picked up a graphics card upgraded iMac instead of waiting :p
A bit disappointing in my opinion. If this happened a few weeks ago, it'd be nice but such a long delay - for what? I would also like to see those MBPs benchmarked.
Much as I like how the MBP looks, and know that it's a good performer, the lack of a good (gaming) graphics card won't tempt me towards saving money for one of these. x1600's all right, but not really enough, especially for the next couple of years.
A bit disappointing in my opinion. If this happened a few weeks ago, it'd be nice but such a long delay - for what? I would also like to see those MBPs benchmarked.
Much as I like how the MBP looks, and know that it's a good performer, the lack of a good (gaming) graphics card won't tempt me towards saving money for one of these. x1600's all right, but not really enough, especially for the next couple of years.
masterjames
Apr 15, 01:48 PM
Oh my! I downloaded the software update for Developer Preview 2 and now I just have a blank white screen when I reboot.
I have tried to reboot multiple times and I have let the computer set for a while with no change. Still just a blank white screen.
Well, I am able to run it by booting into safe mode. After running in safe mode and then rebooting, it cleared a startup cache and then it booted up in normal mode, but crashed with a grey screen immediately to power the computer off. I am still able to boot and run in safe mode okay.
I am using a new 2011 MBP 13" with 8GB RAM and the i7 CPU.
I have tried to reboot multiple times and I have let the computer set for a while with no change. Still just a blank white screen.
Well, I am able to run it by booting into safe mode. After running in safe mode and then rebooting, it cleared a startup cache and then it booted up in normal mode, but crashed with a grey screen immediately to power the computer off. I am still able to boot and run in safe mode okay.
I am using a new 2011 MBP 13" with 8GB RAM and the i7 CPU.
supafly1703
Jul 28, 10:13 AM
I wonder if they have appropriated another $4 BILLION to blow in an effort to overtake a market leader a la XBox...
more...
timerollson
Nov 8, 09:50 AM
I keep having the money to buy this but end up purchasing something else like Fall/Winter clothes LOL. A PS3 won't keep my warm in Boston.
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/68-110-062-TS?$S300$
or this:
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/30-120-468-TS?$S300W$
Haven't had a camera since a Canon SD630 (no longer in my possession).
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/68-110-062-TS?$S300$
or this:
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/30-120-468-TS?$S300W$
Haven't had a camera since a Canon SD630 (no longer in my possession).
nies
Apr 27, 08:36 PM
why would it be a mistake for us to vote you off?
more...
Queso
Jul 25, 04:09 AM
The cheapest iMac is $1300 and doesnt have the same "desirability" that a tower has to people looking for the best bang for their buck (even though they are technically the same).
What "desirability" does a tower plus monitor combination have over an iMac exactly? I have no interest in interior design, yet even I can see the benefit of sleek tidy iMac against cable mess ugly boxes taking up too much space.
Tower plus monitor desirable? No thanks.
What "desirability" does a tower plus monitor combination have over an iMac exactly? I have no interest in interior design, yet even I can see the benefit of sleek tidy iMac against cable mess ugly boxes taking up too much space.
Tower plus monitor desirable? No thanks.
wordoflife
Oct 20, 09:52 PM
To be honest, I kind of have everything I want. (mainly my Mac and phone). I think for Christmas I would like a few hundred bucks (just incase I wanted to buy something) and certainly a new watch, which I might end up buying myself before then.
more...
FloatingBones
Nov 23, 11:35 PM
I'll say this one last time. Flash is not an app! It's a method of delivering content on a web site.
If there were not Flash applications, then Adobe would not have developed and released its Packager for iPhone (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/packagerforiphone/).
Flash is also a way to deliver video. The Skyfire App (http://skyfire.com/product/iphone) is a way for iOS users to view those legacy Flash videos. When sites update their video to be HTML compliant, bridging services like Skyfire will no longer be needed for that conversion.
Finally, as you note, Flash is also a way to deliver web content.
You cannot make iOS "apps" to replace a web page dude.
Why not? That sounds like the exact purpose of Adobe's new packager tool.
As long as there are Flash only web sites, there will be a demand for Flash plugins.
Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins.
As long as websites serve up some or all of their content solely through Flash, they will be shut out from users on those iOS devices. Adobe recognizes this shortcoming in Flash and is rapidly developing a Flash to HTML5 converter (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999):
Here's what Adobe blogged about that (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html) after a demo at their Adobe MAX 2010 conference in October:
How could I create rich experiences that run on desktops (where Flash is the obvious, consistent (cross-browser/-platform) choice) and on iOS devices where Flash isn�t allowed? I�d have to create two versions of a everything�one Flash, and one HTML5*. Good luck getting clients to double their budgets, though, and yet they don�t want richness cut in half.
So, the opportunity: Cut the cost of targeting multiple runtimes & we�ll deliver real wins: more richness for clients, and a competitive advantage for customers. [...]
Adobe lives or dies by its ability to help customers solve real problems. That means putting pragmatism ahead of ideology.
Once a website has gone through the process of serving up HTML5, why bother serving up Flash to anybody? This tool will continue to lessen the need for Flash on the browser for everybody.
This Skyfire app is proof of that.
Not exactly. Skyfire is not optimal for iPhone users, because videos they request have to go through Skyfire's servers for conversion. It's also not a complete solution for websites, because only a fraction of the iOS users will purchase the Skyfire app. Skyfire functions as a bridging app to give websites access to iOS users until they convert their video inventory to HTML5.
I won't bother arguing anymore about the other things as it's a complete waste of my time.
That would be good.
Ironically, Adobe's new conversion tools will accelerate the demise of Flash on the web.
If there were not Flash applications, then Adobe would not have developed and released its Packager for iPhone (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/packagerforiphone/).
Flash is also a way to deliver video. The Skyfire App (http://skyfire.com/product/iphone) is a way for iOS users to view those legacy Flash videos. When sites update their video to be HTML compliant, bridging services like Skyfire will no longer be needed for that conversion.
Finally, as you note, Flash is also a way to deliver web content.
You cannot make iOS "apps" to replace a web page dude.
Why not? That sounds like the exact purpose of Adobe's new packager tool.
As long as there are Flash only web sites, there will be a demand for Flash plugins.
Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins.
As long as websites serve up some or all of their content solely through Flash, they will be shut out from users on those iOS devices. Adobe recognizes this shortcoming in Flash and is rapidly developing a Flash to HTML5 converter (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999):
Here's what Adobe blogged about that (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html) after a demo at their Adobe MAX 2010 conference in October:
How could I create rich experiences that run on desktops (where Flash is the obvious, consistent (cross-browser/-platform) choice) and on iOS devices where Flash isn�t allowed? I�d have to create two versions of a everything�one Flash, and one HTML5*. Good luck getting clients to double their budgets, though, and yet they don�t want richness cut in half.
So, the opportunity: Cut the cost of targeting multiple runtimes & we�ll deliver real wins: more richness for clients, and a competitive advantage for customers. [...]
Adobe lives or dies by its ability to help customers solve real problems. That means putting pragmatism ahead of ideology.
Once a website has gone through the process of serving up HTML5, why bother serving up Flash to anybody? This tool will continue to lessen the need for Flash on the browser for everybody.
This Skyfire app is proof of that.
Not exactly. Skyfire is not optimal for iPhone users, because videos they request have to go through Skyfire's servers for conversion. It's also not a complete solution for websites, because only a fraction of the iOS users will purchase the Skyfire app. Skyfire functions as a bridging app to give websites access to iOS users until they convert their video inventory to HTML5.
I won't bother arguing anymore about the other things as it's a complete waste of my time.
That would be good.
Ironically, Adobe's new conversion tools will accelerate the demise of Flash on the web.
trekkie604
Oct 25, 02:47 AM
http://link.trekcubed.com/i7pc.png
Among other things...
Among other things...
more...
seble
Apr 15, 07:37 AM
You can 'like' a purchased track from within the music player app now, and post a comment about it. Surprised no one else mentioned this yet... Anyone else spotted any additional changes?
http://instagr.am/p/DKjvV/
I picked up on this before, it was in 4.3.1 for sure
http://instagr.am/p/DKjvV/
I picked up on this before, it was in 4.3.1 for sure
bushman4
Apr 12, 11:04 PM
Iphone 5 looks to be Apples best kept secret yet!
If everyone remembers prior to the Iphone 4 release no info either until the beta version was found in a bar.
This year Apple has doubled up its security and seems as though companies producing the parts fear of losing a contract is keeping everything hush-hush.
Apple not releasing a new IPHONE in June would really pull the stock into the garbage. It would be hard to make up that lost revenue for the quarter.
One thing I've noticed about all these September rumors is that none of them have any substantiation. I repeat none.
If everyone remembers prior to the Iphone 4 release no info either until the beta version was found in a bar.
This year Apple has doubled up its security and seems as though companies producing the parts fear of losing a contract is keeping everything hush-hush.
Apple not releasing a new IPHONE in June would really pull the stock into the garbage. It would be hard to make up that lost revenue for the quarter.
One thing I've noticed about all these September rumors is that none of them have any substantiation. I repeat none.
more...
nonkn4mer
Apr 14, 02:33 AM
Just purchased an app on the ITMS, and it said Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and ix.Mac.MarketingName.
maclaptop
Apr 12, 11:26 PM
The only possible way Apple could announce it at WWDC, is if they already have all parts in stock.
more...
thisisahughes
Apr 22, 04:25 PM
..this looks like garbage. I was hoping Apple would remove the home button entirely.
destroyboredom
Apr 23, 06:46 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
Hmmm...September launch of the iPhone on T-mobile?
Hmmm...September launch of the iPhone on T-mobile?
more...
Rot'nApple
Apr 28, 11:26 AM
Monkeeboy Eric Schmidt's Android is Goin' Down! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URb8h4dLKps) :D
/
/
/
/
/
/
rolfbert
Apr 22, 07:12 AM
Germany is a painful place to defend a patent suit.
because the law system actually makes sense?
because the law system actually makes sense?
Sky Blue
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Hope iCal has a de-uglify option.
alexf
Oct 18, 07:16 PM
Aaaand in 3 ... 2 ... 1:
REALITY CHECK.
This is why I posted my comment correcting your innaccurate assumption that "the iPod is still Apple's cash cow".
The funny part is that I was in no way "defending" the iPod, since I don't have one at the moment and was just as annoyed at Apple as everyone else that Macs were not centerstage... in '04 and '05.
We're rounding out '06 and that argument hasn't held water since last year.
It's been ALL about Mac in '06
He he... I told you this would get emotional! :)
And by the way, you may want to look up "cash cow" in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with a product representing the MAJORITY of a company's income.
REALITY CHECK.
This is why I posted my comment correcting your innaccurate assumption that "the iPod is still Apple's cash cow".
The funny part is that I was in no way "defending" the iPod, since I don't have one at the moment and was just as annoyed at Apple as everyone else that Macs were not centerstage... in '04 and '05.
We're rounding out '06 and that argument hasn't held water since last year.
It's been ALL about Mac in '06
He he... I told you this would get emotional! :)
And by the way, you may want to look up "cash cow" in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with a product representing the MAJORITY of a company's income.
gh0sted
Jul 11, 05:34 PM
I think if Apple gets the 6G iPod to the market before Argo, MS is dead in the water. People aren't going to buy an Argo after shelling out $300-400 for an iPod. Also once everyone sees their friends with the new iPod they wont want anything else. We all know Apple has done wonders making their player an icon.
I think DRM will kill the Argo as well.
I think DRM will kill the Argo as well.
Snowy_River
Jul 12, 07:40 PM
I'm at a loss trying to figure out how this thread got a bit crazy...
The actual program used in Snowy's case matters little in getting it ready for the printer. You give the printer the file to print, and he/she will print it for you. Doesn't matter if it's a pdf from Word, a pdf from Pages, a doc from Word, an Indesign file, or a Quark Express file. If they can open the file, they can print it.
Again, most copy shops have elaborate folding, binding, stapling, and saddle stitching services that don't require the customer to figure out how to non-sequentually order pages. A skilled copy machine operator should be able to set up the job in less than 10 minutes.
You know, I'm with you. If we don't stop this bickering the thread is likely to get closed. I always find it irritating when that happens. So, I suggest we drop the "professional" vs. "consumer" argument. It's clear that we have different opinions, and neither of us seems to be being swayed by the other's arguments. So, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
Now, just so I don't get accused of trying to get the last word in before saying that we should drop it, I'll invite those on the other side of the argument to have one last quip, which I won't respond to. Then we can drop it. Sound fair?
The actual program used in Snowy's case matters little in getting it ready for the printer. You give the printer the file to print, and he/she will print it for you. Doesn't matter if it's a pdf from Word, a pdf from Pages, a doc from Word, an Indesign file, or a Quark Express file. If they can open the file, they can print it.
Again, most copy shops have elaborate folding, binding, stapling, and saddle stitching services that don't require the customer to figure out how to non-sequentually order pages. A skilled copy machine operator should be able to set up the job in less than 10 minutes.
You know, I'm with you. If we don't stop this bickering the thread is likely to get closed. I always find it irritating when that happens. So, I suggest we drop the "professional" vs. "consumer" argument. It's clear that we have different opinions, and neither of us seems to be being swayed by the other's arguments. So, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
Now, just so I don't get accused of trying to get the last word in before saying that we should drop it, I'll invite those on the other side of the argument to have one last quip, which I won't respond to. Then we can drop it. Sound fair?
clintob
Oct 23, 04:07 PM
This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.
Not exactly. This is a correct report that Microsoft has tried to cloud and cover up. Essentially, Vista will be licensed on a two-machine basis, with some basic restrictions (like all software has). Nothing new there.
What's new, and what is actually a correct report, is that MS has addressed the use of their OS in a virtual environment which was never completely addressed before in their EULA and terms of use. Because virtual environments are technically different than system installs, it was a grey area. Now they are explicitly banning such use for users of any version other than the premium level. Whether or not it will be "technically" illegal, but still possible, or if it will be impossible without piracy, remains to be seen.
It's not particularly earth shattering or shocking one way or the other. All companies have their dirty little ways to make an extra buck or keep you paying them long after you should. Apple does it too.
From a business perspective, it's really not a terrible strategy by MS if they want to keep customers. The Intel Mac switch has opened the door for PC diehards to take the plunge to a Mac without the risk of being away from their cherished Windows environment. Making Vista difficult, or at least expensive, to install on these new Macs is actually not a bad strategy for MS to keep some customers iffy about making the switch. Sucks for us, but it's certainly not the first time it's been done, by MS, Apple, Adobe, or any other company.
Not exactly. This is a correct report that Microsoft has tried to cloud and cover up. Essentially, Vista will be licensed on a two-machine basis, with some basic restrictions (like all software has). Nothing new there.
What's new, and what is actually a correct report, is that MS has addressed the use of their OS in a virtual environment which was never completely addressed before in their EULA and terms of use. Because virtual environments are technically different than system installs, it was a grey area. Now they are explicitly banning such use for users of any version other than the premium level. Whether or not it will be "technically" illegal, but still possible, or if it will be impossible without piracy, remains to be seen.
It's not particularly earth shattering or shocking one way or the other. All companies have their dirty little ways to make an extra buck or keep you paying them long after you should. Apple does it too.
From a business perspective, it's really not a terrible strategy by MS if they want to keep customers. The Intel Mac switch has opened the door for PC diehards to take the plunge to a Mac without the risk of being away from their cherished Windows environment. Making Vista difficult, or at least expensive, to install on these new Macs is actually not a bad strategy for MS to keep some customers iffy about making the switch. Sucks for us, but it's certainly not the first time it's been done, by MS, Apple, Adobe, or any other company.
Unorthodox
Oct 18, 05:07 PM
Pssh.
That nothing.
I made 600 million profit selling lemonade on my street just last week.
That nothing.
I made 600 million profit selling lemonade on my street just last week.