tripjammer
Apr 11, 01:04 PM
You guys really believe this? We all know the Iphone 5 will basically have the guts of the Ipad 2...so all the componets are ready...it will be out this summer. These rumors are just to keep Android and Microsoft not knowing.
Ipad in the spring
Iphone in the summer
Itouch\AppleTV\IPODs in the fall
Its like that and it will always be...it works for apple.
Ipad in the spring
Iphone in the summer
Itouch\AppleTV\IPODs in the fall
Its like that and it will always be...it works for apple.
sam10685
Aug 11, 01:19 PM
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
8) Lightweight, small FF
that would be a definite for Apple... also, i think this thing will be really really awesome considering the fact that Steve Jobs himself is already boasting about it... he never does that prior to a release. (unless he's previewing something for us like he just did with Leopard.)
8) Lightweight, small FF
that would be a definite for Apple... also, i think this thing will be really really awesome considering the fact that Steve Jobs himself is already boasting about it... he never does that prior to a release. (unless he's previewing something for us like he just did with Leopard.)
robwormald
Mar 22, 02:18 PM
What I'm looking forward to the most is playing with the web browsers on these machines. Our internal business applications run either in a JRE or in a web browser - on iPads we run them as full screen web apps. Works great.
Unfortunately Apple saw fit not to allow full screen web-apps to use the Nitro JS engine, so we're not seeing the same performance bumps there.
I demo'ed a Xoom for a few days - the web app support is frankly atrocious and was basically unusable - unfortunate as we're a Google Apps shop and the integration would have been nice. I don't hold out much hope for the other Honeycomb based tablets.
However, the reviews on the Playbook and WebOS tablets have been pretty stellar about the web browser - so I'm excited to see how webapps work on these (especially WebOS!)
Unfortunately Apple saw fit not to allow full screen web-apps to use the Nitro JS engine, so we're not seeing the same performance bumps there.
I demo'ed a Xoom for a few days - the web app support is frankly atrocious and was basically unusable - unfortunate as we're a Google Apps shop and the integration would have been nice. I don't hold out much hope for the other Honeycomb based tablets.
However, the reviews on the Playbook and WebOS tablets have been pretty stellar about the web browser - so I'm excited to see how webapps work on these (especially WebOS!)
odedia
Aug 27, 03:19 AM
I dont see much change really, the 1.66GHz merom chip will find its way into the mini (they'll scrap the solo model).
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
the iMac will get a conroe. Nothing can be as dumb as putting a laptop chip in the desktop iMac. If the iMac could hold a G5 in it, it sure can hold a Conroe chip.
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
the iMac will get a conroe. Nothing can be as dumb as putting a laptop chip in the desktop iMac. If the iMac could hold a G5 in it, it sure can hold a Conroe chip.
epitaphic
Aug 17, 12:54 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.
Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.
Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.
Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame ;)
Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.
Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.
Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame ;)
Silentwave
Jul 14, 05:34 PM
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
Quarter 4 this year will see the X6900 conroe extreme at 3.2GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
8 core should be out sometime between end of 2006 and beginning of 2007 with the quad core Clovertown processors (based on woodcrest) available in dual chip configurations. And it'll only get better from there.
Which reminds me, though slightly OT... this is a good reason why iMac may well get Conroe now or perhaps get Merom now but transition to a desktop chip by the time Santa Rosa comes out. The new chipset/socket means new logic board, and by the time that comes out the Kenstfield quad core chips on the consumer desktop end will start arriving. I don't yet know how far kentsfield will be scaling either up or down as far as clock speed/heat, but if quad core starts moving into the consumer dekstop market, they will need a very powerful processor: either Conroe or Kentsfield.
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
Quarter 4 this year will see the X6900 conroe extreme at 3.2GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
8 core should be out sometime between end of 2006 and beginning of 2007 with the quad core Clovertown processors (based on woodcrest) available in dual chip configurations. And it'll only get better from there.
Which reminds me, though slightly OT... this is a good reason why iMac may well get Conroe now or perhaps get Merom now but transition to a desktop chip by the time Santa Rosa comes out. The new chipset/socket means new logic board, and by the time that comes out the Kenstfield quad core chips on the consumer desktop end will start arriving. I don't yet know how far kentsfield will be scaling either up or down as far as clock speed/heat, but if quad core starts moving into the consumer dekstop market, they will need a very powerful processor: either Conroe or Kentsfield.
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 03:42 PM
It would be a shame to Apple toss aside its consistent record of having the industry's best support.
I have always wondered if Apple's past industry record on support was really accurate. I think that Apple had such a loyal following of users that they tended to give Apple rosey marks for what most would classify as just average support.
Now with more new users coming to the mac. Support is now getting a less biased audience who have dealt with other computer support groups and are able to make a more accurate comparison.
I have always wondered if Apple's past industry record on support was really accurate. I think that Apple had such a loyal following of users that they tended to give Apple rosey marks for what most would classify as just average support.
Now with more new users coming to the mac. Support is now getting a less biased audience who have dealt with other computer support groups and are able to make a more accurate comparison.
CalBoy
Apr 11, 05:00 PM
Apple can create Christmas any day of the year.
Well that's just it; Apple usually relies on two Christmases per year for each of it's major products.
The first is the initial launch and the second is the Christmas shopping season.
The reason for this is two-fold. The first is so supplies are not constrained for an extended period at one time and the second is so Apple can make use of multiple news cycles to get free press.
If the iPhone 5 is launched just before Christmas it would wreak havoc on Apple's ability to supply the market of not only the US, but also the world. Apple usually uses the downtime from late summer to Christmas to shore up production and supplies for Christmas. There just isn't a good basis for this rumor.
Well that's just it; Apple usually relies on two Christmases per year for each of it's major products.
The first is the initial launch and the second is the Christmas shopping season.
The reason for this is two-fold. The first is so supplies are not constrained for an extended period at one time and the second is so Apple can make use of multiple news cycles to get free press.
If the iPhone 5 is launched just before Christmas it would wreak havoc on Apple's ability to supply the market of not only the US, but also the world. Apple usually uses the downtime from late summer to Christmas to shore up production and supplies for Christmas. There just isn't a good basis for this rumor.
MrChurchyard
Apr 6, 11:48 AM
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward. You know why there is much smaller apps for Android OS that for iOS? Because Adnroid devices have tons of screen resolutions and every ****ing vendor think that this is better but they kill platform with tons of resolutions, it's hard for developers to make apps compatible with all resolutions, again GUI problem.
Not at all. It's pretty obvious that a future iteration of the iPad will have a 2048x1536 resolution, being exactly twice the current resolution. It will be just like they did for the iPhone with the Retina Display.
And it's extremely easy for devs to make a Retina Display enabled app. Actually you don't even have to touch the code (*) at all and just drop in the images at twice the resolution into the assets. Everything else is handled by the OS automatically. Text etc. is scaled appropriately anyway, and if you have the @2x versions of the images used, it will use those instead of the single res versions.
So no, no dev nightmare, no changing of the whole GUI, nothing of the sort.
____
(*)= for devs - yeah, I know about the �imageWithContentsOfFile" bug that won't load the @2x versions ;)
Not at all. It's pretty obvious that a future iteration of the iPad will have a 2048x1536 resolution, being exactly twice the current resolution. It will be just like they did for the iPhone with the Retina Display.
And it's extremely easy for devs to make a Retina Display enabled app. Actually you don't even have to touch the code (*) at all and just drop in the images at twice the resolution into the assets. Everything else is handled by the OS automatically. Text etc. is scaled appropriately anyway, and if you have the @2x versions of the images used, it will use those instead of the single res versions.
So no, no dev nightmare, no changing of the whole GUI, nothing of the sort.
____
(*)= for devs - yeah, I know about the �imageWithContentsOfFile" bug that won't load the @2x versions ;)
brobert99
Apr 11, 01:02 PM
Whos to say Apple aren't leaking these rumors to try and put everyone off and try and prevent the same thing happening as happened with the iPhone 4?
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Multimedia
Sep 13, 12:15 PM
So the question I have is can the latest iMac be CPU upgraded like the MacPro?Only to 2.33GHz Merom C2D which is the forseeable top speed. :(
borisadmin
Jul 28, 05:11 AM
Just to clarify a few things...
Merom uses the same amount of power essentially per MHz as Yonah. However, it is 20% more efficient than Yonah is. So while putting Merom into any of the current machines will NOT make them cooler or use less power than the Yonah versions, they will all:
1 - Be approximately 20% faster at the same MHz rating.
2 - Have 64-bit capability.
3 - Have enhanced SSE (closer to AltiVec than previous Intel chips.)
Some of the Merom chips also have twice the L2 cache (4 MB vs. 2 MB) which would also increase speeds, but the other items above are more important in the grand scheme of things.
Ensoniq, thanks so much for the useful corrections. How significant do you think that 64-bit capability will be in the future compared to not having it(say, 2-3 years time)?
Merom uses the same amount of power essentially per MHz as Yonah. However, it is 20% more efficient than Yonah is. So while putting Merom into any of the current machines will NOT make them cooler or use less power than the Yonah versions, they will all:
1 - Be approximately 20% faster at the same MHz rating.
2 - Have 64-bit capability.
3 - Have enhanced SSE (closer to AltiVec than previous Intel chips.)
Some of the Merom chips also have twice the L2 cache (4 MB vs. 2 MB) which would also increase speeds, but the other items above are more important in the grand scheme of things.
Ensoniq, thanks so much for the useful corrections. How significant do you think that 64-bit capability will be in the future compared to not having it(say, 2-3 years time)?
twoodcc
Aug 27, 10:43 PM
i am looking forward to this game, no matter if it's got standard and premium cars.
barkomatic
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
At a glance your statement sounds fine. But that logic can be used for following logics:
1. I don't care what US does to rest of world as long as I as an american can live nice, prosperous life.
but i digress...
You're comparing a phone or a tablet to U.S. foreign policy? I'm sorry, I don't think gadgets are as important as that but apparently you do. I think you need a check on your perspective.
1. I don't care what US does to rest of world as long as I as an american can live nice, prosperous life.
but i digress...
You're comparing a phone or a tablet to U.S. foreign policy? I'm sorry, I don't think gadgets are as important as that but apparently you do. I think you need a check on your perspective.
john7jr
Aug 7, 08:42 AM
Will Leopard be available for download by ADC members as soon as it is given out at WWDC?
Not immediately, but usually within the week. It varies...
Not immediately, but usually within the week. It varies...
littleman23408
Dec 3, 11:07 PM
. saw a ferrari or lambo at lunch with 3 bunched low tailpipes. be fun to go home and look at the game and see if that car is available in the game!
anyways now that i know this thread exists i'll read the new posts (read all the old today) and chime in from time to time. maybe get some of your online names too so we can race!
You sound like quite the enthusiast and hope to play with you online!
I think you may have saw the Ferrari 458....
If anyone wants to add me, my PSN name is the same as my MR name: NoSmokingBandit
Perhaps we could trade cars or something. I have an '08 Ferrari California (won from the Pro series Ferrari race) i have no use for, but i really need a Lambo (any will do, needed for the Pro series Lambo race).
I sent you a request.
Finally got gold on beginner Nurburgring Sector 2. That has taken me a long time to achieve. I feel sector 2 won't be as hard on intermediate. I think I have spent all of my recent time playing the game on the nurburgring challenges. I love that course!
anyways now that i know this thread exists i'll read the new posts (read all the old today) and chime in from time to time. maybe get some of your online names too so we can race!
You sound like quite the enthusiast and hope to play with you online!
I think you may have saw the Ferrari 458....
If anyone wants to add me, my PSN name is the same as my MR name: NoSmokingBandit
Perhaps we could trade cars or something. I have an '08 Ferrari California (won from the Pro series Ferrari race) i have no use for, but i really need a Lambo (any will do, needed for the Pro series Lambo race).
I sent you a request.
Finally got gold on beginner Nurburgring Sector 2. That has taken me a long time to achieve. I feel sector 2 won't be as hard on intermediate. I think I have spent all of my recent time playing the game on the nurburgring challenges. I love that course!
Doctor Q
Jul 14, 04:02 PM
top heavy is just idiotic.Case designers aren't perfect, but they aren't idiots either. Some PCs have power supplies on top, despite the top heaviness and the extra path for the power cable. What's the reason? There must be some tradeoff involved or they'd never build them that way.
dicklacara
Apr 19, 02:56 PM
One of the three basics that must be proven in order to win a trade dress case, is the likelihood of confusion.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Yes! Some people will think they are buying a Samsung iPhone.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Yes! Some people will think they are buying a Samsung iPhone.
makingdots
Apr 11, 12:51 PM
I've been living with this iphone 3g since it launched and didn't want the iphone 4 for antenna reasons.
Now if this is true that they will push back the iphone 5 release. I will seriously consider jumping platforms.
No point in getting a 4 since it's already outdated and I was hoping for the iphone 5 release in June/July.
I think this is a serious mistake on apple's part and yes, it would also be dumb to release the 5 in june and a 5.5 with LTE in January, but They could push the lte until june of 2012.
The androids are starting to look better and better as time goes on.
Looks like you block mailing Apple? LOL
Just get an android if you can't wait. sheesh
btw, iPhone 4 still awesome even if there's a tons of plastic droids came along before iPhone 5.
Now if this is true that they will push back the iphone 5 release. I will seriously consider jumping platforms.
No point in getting a 4 since it's already outdated and I was hoping for the iphone 5 release in June/July.
I think this is a serious mistake on apple's part and yes, it would also be dumb to release the 5 in june and a 5.5 with LTE in January, but They could push the lte until june of 2012.
The androids are starting to look better and better as time goes on.
Looks like you block mailing Apple? LOL
Just get an android if you can't wait. sheesh
btw, iPhone 4 still awesome even if there's a tons of plastic droids came along before iPhone 5.
skunk
Apr 28, 11:15 AM
Excellent, Raid. I'll use that in PRSI. :D
MrXiro
Mar 26, 10:00 AM
I really want Lion, for the number one reason being TRIM support. I eagerly want to finally start using an SSD (specifically one from Crucial, since they make the fastest ones on the market), but have avoided doing so since the latest version Snow Leopard does not support TRIM.
It's a shame Apple is waiting so long to finally include TRIM support. Windows 7 already includes it.
I think I'll wait until 10.7.3 comes out before upgrading, though. If there are bugs in the TRIM implementation, I fear it may corrupt data.
I have the crucial drive on Snow Leopard... you are plain missing out by waiting... honestly... and you DO know you can just do a secure wipe of the drive and it'll restore any bad blocks right (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=841182)?
I was worried at first too... but damn I don't regret that 400 dollar purchase any longer. Holy crap my MBP is fast as hell.
It's a shame Apple is waiting so long to finally include TRIM support. Windows 7 already includes it.
I think I'll wait until 10.7.3 comes out before upgrading, though. If there are bugs in the TRIM implementation, I fear it may corrupt data.
I have the crucial drive on Snow Leopard... you are plain missing out by waiting... honestly... and you DO know you can just do a secure wipe of the drive and it'll restore any bad blocks right (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=841182)?
I was worried at first too... but damn I don't regret that 400 dollar purchase any longer. Holy crap my MBP is fast as hell.
kcmac
Apr 10, 10:34 AM
Oh boo hoo about the companies being "booted" from sponsorships. The company I work for goes to trade shows. The time invested is actually quite small and most of the materials are in inventory anyway. The presentations are usually based on the same script. I bet the companies aren't that disappointed. In fact they would like to be there and see what Apple is up to more than anyone else. So I bet they'll send the same presenter staff there to view and record anything of note to send back to their company.
Businesses deal with things by contract and those contracts have terms and conditions. No company would just break a contract so I'm sure everything wad handled quite smoothly behind the scenes. So I think this idea that Apple bullied or pushed people is silly.
There are a few times I have made presentations at a conference when I would have loved to have let someone takeover the podium!
Businesses deal with things by contract and those contracts have terms and conditions. No company would just break a contract so I'm sure everything wad handled quite smoothly behind the scenes. So I think this idea that Apple bullied or pushed people is silly.
There are a few times I have made presentations at a conference when I would have loved to have let someone takeover the podium!
Belly-laughs
Nov 28, 08:12 PM
I give Universal $1 to compensate for downloading their whole library illegally? Now, that�s a good deal!
No comments:
Post a Comment