ctdonath
Mar 22, 03:05 PM
I would rather buy that one than the iPad
Thing is...you can't.
Thing is...you can't.
dscuber9000
Apr 27, 02:57 PM
The birthers have moved on to say that because Obama "doesn't have allegiance to America" or some BS like that, he is now no longer a natural born citizen (http://www.birthers.org/). :rolleyes:
Tones2
Apr 11, 02:20 PM
The only downside is, Apple may be so darn busy in the fall with new products, that you won't even be able to get in their stores!
That's why god created the internet.......:D
That's why god created the internet.......:D
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 04:50 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
The problem with having too much memory and resources available to spare, is that many programmers tend to become sloppy and careless about optimizing their code. This is one reason why Microsoft Office requires more and more RAM and CPU every time a new version is released.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
The problem with having too much memory and resources available to spare, is that many programmers tend to become sloppy and careless about optimizing their code. This is one reason why Microsoft Office requires more and more RAM and CPU every time a new version is released.
IBradMac
Jun 14, 12:36 AM
Correct to the even though your an authorized user. Authorized users can do anything but add or upgrade, atleaset at RS.
Skandar Keynes and Georgie
William Moseley, Skandar
Skandar keynes photos
011.jpg william moseley
Skandar Keynes (LLLLL)
william moseley and skandar keynes. william moseley shirt off.
william moseley and skandar keynes. william moseley and skandar; william moseley and skandar. emw. Dec 28, 03:41 PM
William Moseley and Skandar
is skandar keynes and athiest
William Moseley, Skandar
William Mosley
william moseley and skandar keynes. Upload Information: Post date: Posted 1 year ago; Upload Information: Post date: Posted 1 year ago.
William Moseley as Peter
Skandar Keynes, William
kdarling
Mar 23, 10:18 AM
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
I think anyone programming above assembly language and/or on a device with more than about 16K of memory, gets lazy :)
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
Where does Apple's horrible iTunes for Windows fit into this myth?
I think anyone programming above assembly language and/or on a device with more than about 16K of memory, gets lazy :)
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
Where does Apple's horrible iTunes for Windows fit into this myth?
waldobushman
Mar 26, 02:30 PM
There will be some GUI changes. No big deal.
OS X Lion will merge client and server versions.
iOS will run under OS X with separate A5 emulator
New cloud/MobileMe/iTunes support and software refactoring
Java will still be included by default
Cellular hardware support in OS X
Support for untethered sync between computer and iPad/iPhone
OS X will better support headless operation and strong connectivity between OS X and iOS devices.
OS X Lion will merge client and server versions.
iOS will run under OS X with separate A5 emulator
New cloud/MobileMe/iTunes support and software refactoring
Java will still be included by default
Cellular hardware support in OS X
Support for untethered sync between computer and iPad/iPhone
OS X will better support headless operation and strong connectivity between OS X and iOS devices.
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:41 PM
Ridiculous. Mac OS X and iOS can never merge because their UI paradigms are completely different. Why don't people understand this?
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
mwswami
Jul 21, 04:48 PM
Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?
TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)
TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)
Beaverman3001
Apr 6, 01:17 PM
Won't purchase any Mac with intel graphics.
DoFoT9
Aug 12, 02:35 AM
I know they are fundamentally two different types of games in a similar genre, but he brought up the sales of the series, so I offered up another racing game series with much higher sales.
similar genre given racing, but one is a simulator - the other is, a bit more fictional (in a sense).
but anyway, thats a technicality. no doubt that NFS seems to be higher grossing and more popular, as GT targets a pretty acute market. i wonder if GT5 will change that at all.
similar genre given racing, but one is a simulator - the other is, a bit more fictional (in a sense).
but anyway, thats a technicality. no doubt that NFS seems to be higher grossing and more popular, as GT targets a pretty acute market. i wonder if GT5 will change that at all.
JAT
Mar 22, 06:40 PM
i believe samsung manufactures a lot of their own hardware.. from the display panels to the chips. don't they provide apple with parts for the ipad too? i think this is how samsung is able to price match apple here
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
�algiris
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Why did it take so long for Apple to release a statement?
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
Because they hoped people will grow up and educate themselfs. That never happened obviously.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 20, 09:40 AM
I laugh at both dirt games because of this...
Personally, I think Codemasters do a great job with racing games, but the problem is, the games they make are always a little more geared toward arcade-style racing. Realistic enough to really get you into the feel of rallying, or touring cars, or whatever, but not SO realistic that only pros can play the game. The early "Colin McRae Rally" games were tons of fun for that very reason. I only played the demo for Dirt though, so I can't really speak for it.
...Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
I didn't like it at all either... until recently. They've finally added production hoppers, where everyone in the race is using the exact same car. It makes for some GREAT racing. I've only done a few races so far, but they have been some of the best yet.
Personally, I think Codemasters do a great job with racing games, but the problem is, the games they make are always a little more geared toward arcade-style racing. Realistic enough to really get you into the feel of rallying, or touring cars, or whatever, but not SO realistic that only pros can play the game. The early "Colin McRae Rally" games were tons of fun for that very reason. I only played the demo for Dirt though, so I can't really speak for it.
...Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
I didn't like it at all either... until recently. They've finally added production hoppers, where everyone in the race is using the exact same car. It makes for some GREAT racing. I've only done a few races so far, but they have been some of the best yet.
dustinsc
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Assuming this gets out of vaporware status, it looks pretty good. The custom interface also looks good. Apple better have some improvements to the UI (ahem, notifications) in iOS 5
bedifferent
Mar 26, 01:46 AM
No way. The current Lion is a developer preview and not even a beta. For third party applications to test their products on OS X 10.7, just as any 10.X, there are dozens of beta's before it even reaches GM. As a developer since 10.1, I can assure you there has never been an instance of such. Currently Apple is examining the hundreds of bug reports filed by developers as well as many other suggestions before releasing the first official beta.
If the remote chance this is valid and Apple has set a new precendent for OS X development, then I would know well that Apple officially cares less about OS X and much more about iOS (as evident by the dozens of iOS updates for all iOS devices to date).
This post made me laugh. As a developer who is actively testing and reporting bugs I can tell you that without a doubt this is 100% false. My dozen of bug reports combined with a lot of different discussions happening in the developer forums is a pretty clear indicator they have a while to go.
Side note: Really? Techcrunch?
On point.
If the remote chance this is valid and Apple has set a new precendent for OS X development, then I would know well that Apple officially cares less about OS X and much more about iOS (as evident by the dozens of iOS updates for all iOS devices to date).
This post made me laugh. As a developer who is actively testing and reporting bugs I can tell you that without a doubt this is 100% false. My dozen of bug reports combined with a lot of different discussions happening in the developer forums is a pretty clear indicator they have a while to go.
Side note: Really? Techcrunch?
On point.
~Shard~
Jul 14, 03:05 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
I've never thought much of the relevance of its placement myself - why do you say that? Care to elaborate on why it is "REALLY stupid"?
I've never thought much of the relevance of its placement myself - why do you say that? Care to elaborate on why it is "REALLY stupid"?
Ivan P
Apr 8, 02:25 AM
Well right now I'm looking at both their online stores. Both sites have the Apple TV @ $99, so... uh.. Lol.
Wait ... I don't think I mentioned Best Buy paying customers to buy Apple products. I don't fully understand your post :/
I think what they're saying is it costs Best Buy (and I guess other resellers) $90 for each AppleTV unit they order in - and they sell it for Apple's set price of $99, meaning they make a measly $9 profit from the sale of one unit. They didn't mean that they are selling the unit to the consumer themselves for $90.
Edit. Original poster replied saying the exact same thing
Wait ... I don't think I mentioned Best Buy paying customers to buy Apple products. I don't fully understand your post :/
I think what they're saying is it costs Best Buy (and I guess other resellers) $90 for each AppleTV unit they order in - and they sell it for Apple's set price of $99, meaning they make a measly $9 profit from the sale of one unit. They didn't mean that they are selling the unit to the consumer themselves for $90.
Edit. Original poster replied saying the exact same thing
john123
Sep 19, 08:59 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?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
BRLawyer
Aug 27, 02:56 AM
You are talking crap. It is only about industrial quality. Nothing else.
There are simply too many individual issues with the new MB and MBP here, and I do not want to repeat them. Mostly hardware, but some are related to using OSX and MSOS. You can read, so do that.
APPLE has been 'second to none' in the eyes of APPLE users, compared to who? I think MAC OS is fantastic, but it does not mean, that all those who switch now to APPLE have to accept hardware lemons to get this OS... Absolutely no excuse for over 25% crap products delivered to the customers...
Everybody knows that APPLE could have had a 40+ market share, but decided not to license out. We all would be happier now, but JOBS decided against that years back. So now we are talking about a less than 5% market share... JUst do your math: If they had a 40% share WW, we would hear millions screaming about their lemons...
It seems there's too much luck involved when buying an APPLE product right now.
When they finally get their QC act together I will gladly buy their product.
Cheers, and no hard feelings.
No hard feelings indeed, but please show me numbers and facts, not anecdotal evidence of some dozens/hundreds of people (as compared to millions of purchasers). I will take your point when you do that, thanks very much. And really, to say that 25% of Apple products are lemons is to be, at very least, extremely glib.
Besides, if Apple is able to replace/fix those that have problems, there is no reason to complain whatsoever...this is what guarantees and technical support are for.
There are simply too many individual issues with the new MB and MBP here, and I do not want to repeat them. Mostly hardware, but some are related to using OSX and MSOS. You can read, so do that.
APPLE has been 'second to none' in the eyes of APPLE users, compared to who? I think MAC OS is fantastic, but it does not mean, that all those who switch now to APPLE have to accept hardware lemons to get this OS... Absolutely no excuse for over 25% crap products delivered to the customers...
Everybody knows that APPLE could have had a 40+ market share, but decided not to license out. We all would be happier now, but JOBS decided against that years back. So now we are talking about a less than 5% market share... JUst do your math: If they had a 40% share WW, we would hear millions screaming about their lemons...
It seems there's too much luck involved when buying an APPLE product right now.
When they finally get their QC act together I will gladly buy their product.
Cheers, and no hard feelings.
No hard feelings indeed, but please show me numbers and facts, not anecdotal evidence of some dozens/hundreds of people (as compared to millions of purchasers). I will take your point when you do that, thanks very much. And really, to say that 25% of Apple products are lemons is to be, at very least, extremely glib.
Besides, if Apple is able to replace/fix those that have problems, there is no reason to complain whatsoever...this is what guarantees and technical support are for.
Tones2
Apr 11, 01:26 PM
You guys know the average Joe don't go shopping for a new smart phone every other month?
This is a big deal to some of you guys only because you obsess over this topic almost daily.
Tell that to the million people who bought an iPad 2 about a year after the iPad 1 release.
Tony
This is a big deal to some of you guys only because you obsess over this topic almost daily.
Tell that to the million people who bought an iPad 2 about a year after the iPad 1 release.
Tony
soldierblue
Apr 20, 03:15 PM
The suits aren't very similar at all.
They're similar enough that an average person should be able to make a connection. Apple is filing a lawsuit against Samsung that doesn't have much chance of sticking, but that's not even the point, they want to scare Samsung into a settlement in all likelihood.
Think deeper. They're more similar than you think they are.
They're similar enough that an average person should be able to make a connection. Apple is filing a lawsuit against Samsung that doesn't have much chance of sticking, but that's not even the point, they want to scare Samsung into a settlement in all likelihood.
Think deeper. They're more similar than you think they are.
dezeinstein
Jun 8, 06:46 PM
You've got questions. We've got transistors.
theBB
Aug 11, 07:28 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
No comments:
Post a Comment