iMeowbot
Sep 19, 08:43 AM
All you people who keep whining about "But I want 64 bit!!!" need to step back and think about what possible benefit a 64-bit system will give you. Those of you who need to address more than 4 gigs of RAM are excused. The rest of you, tell me WHY you need 64-bit computing.
There is a general unease about the AMD64 instruction set. We are already seeing a few programs that only run on Intel Macs. What's to stop developers from ignoring the x86 target in new software, especially on the high end, given the short sales cycle of x86-only Macs? The Mac Pro didn't even have a 32-bit version.
There is a general unease about the AMD64 instruction set. We are already seeing a few programs that only run on Intel Macs. What's to stop developers from ignoring the x86 target in new software, especially on the high end, given the short sales cycle of x86-only Macs? The Mac Pro didn't even have a 32-bit version.
leumluath
Aug 11, 11:56 AM
isn't it about time you guys got in line with the rest of the world? GSM has more than 81% of the world market.
...the GSM providers' coverage area is inadequate. I need a phone that works most everywhere (in the US), not just along expressways and in major cities. Bad as it is, CDMA is the only practical option for those of us who travel.
...the GSM providers' coverage area is inadequate. I need a phone that works most everywhere (in the US), not just along expressways and in major cities. Bad as it is, CDMA is the only practical option for those of us who travel.
emotion
Jul 20, 08:11 AM
WOW! Octo cores:eek:
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
bizzle
Apr 28, 06:00 AM
I am not going to read 7 pages to see if someone already said this because I am sure they did.
It's clearly a forgery.
Not liking Obama does not mean you are racist.
It's clearly a forgery.
Not liking Obama does not mean you are racist.
rdowns
Apr 27, 09:20 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2711155/posts?q=1&;page=101
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
Trump now wants to see and taste the after-birth before dropping the issue. :rolleyes:
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
Trump now wants to see and taste the after-birth before dropping the issue. :rolleyes:
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
11thIndian
Apr 6, 07:25 AM
.. I never use it, but I use Motion and Soundtrack a lot and I need true 3D in Motion, even simply 3D. I need no crashing Motion. I need optimised and 64-bit Motion. I want it now, please!
What do you mean true 3D? Motion 3 integrated 3D reflection, shadows, depth of field, etc.. It was around that time I stopped using After Effects. There are still things that AE can do that Motion can't, but that's mostly due to 3rd party plugins.
What do you mean true 3D? Motion 3 integrated 3D reflection, shadows, depth of field, etc.. It was around that time I stopped using After Effects. There are still things that AE can do that Motion can't, but that's mostly due to 3rd party plugins.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 04:06 PM
The consequence is a laptop with a power cord attach to them feeding the insatiable appetite of the thermo nuclear reactor we call the CPU. For the love of reason and common sense, why can't Apple make a laptop with a day worth of battery powered. How about OLED display and multicore chip running at much lower frequency. Enough with the Ghz BS; what is the different between a 2.16Ghz and a 2.33 Ghz processors again?
Cinch
For the same reason that pretty much no-one else makes a laptop like what you described either. The only thing I've seen that even gets close to the sort of battery life you are talking about are some of the Japanese ultraportables that can get 6-11 hours of battery life, using 10-12" screens and very slow and power efficient ULV Core Solo or ULV Pentium M chips. These laptops also tend to cost in the $2000-3000 range.
I would venture to say that even if you slapped one of those ULV processors in a larger notebook with a larger battery, you still wouldn't be able to balance things out to get 24 hours of battery life.
And one has to wonder if people would put up with the performance hit.
OLED display technology at least probably isn't ready to be used for something like a laptop screen.
So, for the "love of reason and common sense", can we stop expecting Apple to create a product that isn't even technically feasible right now?
I think if you want 24 hours of battery life, you're probably better off carrying 6 or 7 spare batteries (and the $600-700 cost of doing so and added weight is still probably less than what it would take to get some laptop that actually had a reliable 24 hour battery life.)
-Zadillo
Cinch
For the same reason that pretty much no-one else makes a laptop like what you described either. The only thing I've seen that even gets close to the sort of battery life you are talking about are some of the Japanese ultraportables that can get 6-11 hours of battery life, using 10-12" screens and very slow and power efficient ULV Core Solo or ULV Pentium M chips. These laptops also tend to cost in the $2000-3000 range.
I would venture to say that even if you slapped one of those ULV processors in a larger notebook with a larger battery, you still wouldn't be able to balance things out to get 24 hours of battery life.
And one has to wonder if people would put up with the performance hit.
OLED display technology at least probably isn't ready to be used for something like a laptop screen.
So, for the "love of reason and common sense", can we stop expecting Apple to create a product that isn't even technically feasible right now?
I think if you want 24 hours of battery life, you're probably better off carrying 6 or 7 spare batteries (and the $600-700 cost of doing so and added weight is still probably less than what it would take to get some laptop that actually had a reliable 24 hour battery life.)
-Zadillo
Arcus
Apr 25, 03:46 PM
Sued for breaking what law?
Being sued and breaking the law are two different things. I can sue you for killing the tree between our yards. You didnt break any law, but I can still sue.
I kinda see where he is a bit right. If I turn off or say no to allowing the apps to use my location this might suggest to the user that it is not tracking and storing this data. I do not think that it is a stretch to make that connection.
I do agree this is way out of hand though.
Being sued and breaking the law are two different things. I can sue you for killing the tree between our yards. You didnt break any law, but I can still sue.
I kinda see where he is a bit right. If I turn off or say no to allowing the apps to use my location this might suggest to the user that it is not tracking and storing this data. I do not think that it is a stretch to make that connection.
I do agree this is way out of hand though.
koobcamuk
Apr 7, 10:21 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Please tell him.
Please tell him.
nsjoker
Aug 17, 01:41 AM
lol you mac folk and your photoshop :D
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:
Sped
Aug 7, 04:58 PM
Not a glimpse of the Finder...! :eek:
Here, here. I have been a very happy Mac fan for several years now, but the Finder is a POS. Although specifically mentioning a new Finder might be considered acknowledgment that it stinks, I think Steve could couch it in favorable language. Bottom line, Leopard better FTFF.
Here, here. I have been a very happy Mac fan for several years now, but the Finder is a POS. Although specifically mentioning a new Finder might be considered acknowledgment that it stinks, I think Steve could couch it in favorable language. Bottom line, Leopard better FTFF.
mkruck
Apr 6, 04:43 PM
You both ignored HOT DOGS! Sheesh, hot dogs rule. The only problem is kids under 6 choking on them unless you cut them right. But that will be fixed in the v3.0 hot dog, they will come pre-sliced.
Hot dogs?
Hot dogs?
Those are the Hyundai of...oh, wait, that analogy has been used already. Uhhhmmmm, Hot Dogs are the Yugo...oh, man, did it again.
OK, I've got it: Hot Dogs are the Hot Dogs of food.
Hot dogs?
Hot dogs?
Those are the Hyundai of...oh, wait, that analogy has been used already. Uhhhmmmm, Hot Dogs are the Yugo...oh, man, did it again.
OK, I've got it: Hot Dogs are the Hot Dogs of food.
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 19, 02:24 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz
Why yes we do.
If you can get more speed, and if the competition is doing it, why not? If you're spending a ton of money on a computer, wouldn't you want to most recent one available? Am I being too greedy when I see competitors using a newer, faster chip at the same price as the old chip (easily swappable too) and demand that I want that in my "pro" laptop from Apple?
As for constant revisions, you're probably thinking a bit about resale values. In the long run, constant speed bumps won't affect your resale value at all. (Think about it. You compare old laptop speed to current generation speed. It doesn't matter whatever happened in the middle.)
Why yes we do.
If you can get more speed, and if the competition is doing it, why not? If you're spending a ton of money on a computer, wouldn't you want to most recent one available? Am I being too greedy when I see competitors using a newer, faster chip at the same price as the old chip (easily swappable too) and demand that I want that in my "pro" laptop from Apple?
As for constant revisions, you're probably thinking a bit about resale values. In the long run, constant speed bumps won't affect your resale value at all. (Think about it. You compare old laptop speed to current generation speed. It doesn't matter whatever happened in the middle.)
bibbz
Jun 12, 08:30 AM
Been skimming over 4 pages here so
forgive me if this has been answered...
The only way this Radio Shack deal seems
to work well is if I can walk in the store,
hand them my 3GS phone and get immediate
credit towards an iPhone 4.
If I have to mail my 3GS back to RS and
then wait for a gift card to arrive in the
mail and then go to the store and buy the
iPhone 4 it is just not worth it.
So, the question is, can I simply go to
my Radio Shack store, hand them my
3GS and get immediate store credit on
the new iPhone?
Yes, whole process takes less than 5 minutes.
You come in tell us you want to trade in
We log in and appraise it.
Tell you the appraisal.
You approve or decline.
If you approve, we then hit accept and generate a shipping label and some bar codes with a sku number, and amount of credit.
We put your old iphone in a box slap the label on it and put it to the side.
We then ring up whatever you are wanting to purchase.
Scan the sku that tells the computer its about to have an amount scanned.
Scan the amount.
Instant Happiness!
If your total ticket is more than the appraisal it removes the appraised amount, if its less we apply the rest to a gift card.
forgive me if this has been answered...
The only way this Radio Shack deal seems
to work well is if I can walk in the store,
hand them my 3GS phone and get immediate
credit towards an iPhone 4.
If I have to mail my 3GS back to RS and
then wait for a gift card to arrive in the
mail and then go to the store and buy the
iPhone 4 it is just not worth it.
So, the question is, can I simply go to
my Radio Shack store, hand them my
3GS and get immediate store credit on
the new iPhone?
Yes, whole process takes less than 5 minutes.
You come in tell us you want to trade in
We log in and appraise it.
Tell you the appraisal.
You approve or decline.
If you approve, we then hit accept and generate a shipping label and some bar codes with a sku number, and amount of credit.
We put your old iphone in a box slap the label on it and put it to the side.
We then ring up whatever you are wanting to purchase.
Scan the sku that tells the computer its about to have an amount scanned.
Scan the amount.
Instant Happiness!
If your total ticket is more than the appraisal it removes the appraised amount, if its less we apply the rest to a gift card.
steadysignal
Apr 12, 07:51 AM
i actually dont mind this. i'd like to enjoy the 4 a little longer...
dampfnudel
Mar 31, 09:44 PM
Well, it's about time Google did this.
rosalindavenue
Mar 31, 03:18 PM
Not a problem for me. HTC does a great job keeping phones updated.
Spoken like someone who never owned an Eris.
Spoken like someone who never owned an Eris.
TripHop
Jun 14, 06:27 PM
The info i stated is directly from my DM.
We havent been told no white ones. I even asked specifically on the call, and no one had heard that.
Rumor has it, 20k phones. We haven't got an official number, but i've heard 20k mentioned from a few different higher ups.That number has got to be just for your district. No way is that a national number. If I can't get a white one that leaves me out. I want a white 32.
We havent been told no white ones. I even asked specifically on the call, and no one had heard that.
Rumor has it, 20k phones. We haven't got an official number, but i've heard 20k mentioned from a few different higher ups.That number has got to be just for your district. No way is that a national number. If I can't get a white one that leaves me out. I want a white 32.
nvbrit
Apr 25, 01:56 PM
You aren't being tracked by Apple, you aren't being tracked to the meter. You can opt out, just switch off location services.
And by the way even if you do 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.
Stop being a paranoid sheep and start reading the facts of this case not the media hype.
well said... this is just hysterical that all this fuss is being made over a file store privately on your own phone and your own computer and not being sent to anyone else. Yes what a total outrage my own devices are storing my own information in a place that only I can access! Grow up people!
And by the way even if you do 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.
Stop being a paranoid sheep and start reading the facts of this case not the media hype.
well said... this is just hysterical that all this fuss is being made over a file store privately on your own phone and your own computer and not being sent to anyone else. Yes what a total outrage my own devices are storing my own information in a place that only I can access! Grow up people!
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 01:46 PM
They don't need to amend. This is a federal pleading so the standard is whether it puts Samsung on notice. This is a different standard than state courts, where they would have to be much more specific. Eventually they will have to prove which models are accused. Looks to me like the complaint is fine.
So all that is left is to discuss the actual merit of the trade dress claim, of course, something that will in the end be up to the judge.
We can use pictures all we want, something tells me Samsung is just going to bring in devices into the courtroom. Pictures can be misleading as certain angles/shots might make ressemblances show up that aren't quite there.
Also, it remains to be seen how much the judge will accept generic things like "rounded corner", since I don't think I've ever had a phone without rounded corners and how much in the end, he decides that the devices to ressemble or not each other.
Do you know of someone that looked up the icon trademarks on the USPTO site ? Did Apple even register them (I know you don't have to, unless you want punitive damages) ?
So all that is left is to discuss the actual merit of the trade dress claim, of course, something that will in the end be up to the judge.
We can use pictures all we want, something tells me Samsung is just going to bring in devices into the courtroom. Pictures can be misleading as certain angles/shots might make ressemblances show up that aren't quite there.
Also, it remains to be seen how much the judge will accept generic things like "rounded corner", since I don't think I've ever had a phone without rounded corners and how much in the end, he decides that the devices to ressemble or not each other.
Do you know of someone that looked up the icon trademarks on the USPTO site ? Did Apple even register them (I know you don't have to, unless you want punitive damages) ?
Morpheus_
Jul 14, 04:54 PM
Dear Steve,
The iMac might be fine, but I don't need to pay for another monitor - I have a 20" and maybe I'll update that someday. I like expandability/flexibility in my displays, as well as my hard drives and hopefully my CPU.
The Mac Mini is not powerful enough.
The Mac Pro is too expensive, too top-end.
So Steve, will there be a "Mac" (not Pro) line? (How about "Big Mac"? Oh, that's taken...)
I basically want something that is good for gaming (in OS X and hence also in Windows, if necessary), but not ludicrously expensive. Something like I would have built myself in the years past - a good but not ridiculous CPU, a good but not ridiculous graphics card, and a nice amount of memory and storage -- then just throw it in a tower.
Maybe there will be a lower-end "Mac Pro", but it just doesn't make sense following the "Pro" nomenclature.
The iMac might be fine, but I don't need to pay for another monitor - I have a 20" and maybe I'll update that someday. I like expandability/flexibility in my displays, as well as my hard drives and hopefully my CPU.
The Mac Mini is not powerful enough.
The Mac Pro is too expensive, too top-end.
So Steve, will there be a "Mac" (not Pro) line? (How about "Big Mac"? Oh, that's taken...)
I basically want something that is good for gaming (in OS X and hence also in Windows, if necessary), but not ludicrously expensive. Something like I would have built myself in the years past - a good but not ridiculous CPU, a good but not ridiculous graphics card, and a nice amount of memory and storage -- then just throw it in a tower.
Maybe there will be a lower-end "Mac Pro", but it just doesn't make sense following the "Pro" nomenclature.
halhiker
Apr 6, 01:43 PM
That's actually more than I expected.
deconai
Aug 11, 03:37 PM
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
Are you saying 99% of Europeans use cell phones or that 99% of Europe is cell-ready? If the former, then there must be a ton of kids yapping it up on the wireless. ;)
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
Are you saying 99% of Europeans use cell phones or that 99% of Europe is cell-ready? If the former, then there must be a ton of kids yapping it up on the wireless. ;)
