appleguy
Jan 11, 04:38 PM
Come on guys get it right
it us be the PowerBook G5:p
it us be the PowerBook G5:p
iJawn108
Sep 4, 12:38 PM
If the nano's are up to 8 gig and come in a pro-like metal i will be buying it. :p
i would kind of like a memron update for the macbooks but i just may wait till santa rosa(cringes, feels painful).
i would kind of like a memron update for the macbooks but i just may wait till santa rosa(cringes, feels painful).
sconnor99
Apr 13, 04:11 PM
It's nice to see the generally positive comments on this forum, other forums for "professionals" are not so happy!
Personally I can't wait to start working with it.
Personally I can't wait to start working with it.
Signal-11
Mar 19, 02:27 PM
Especially when iPods first hit the scene, price was a big issue for a lot of customers. Apple products have always been on the pricey side. So perhaps the popularity of the larger capacity iPods was impacted by the pricing structure, which impacted Apple's perception of the demand.
Apple's non Mac consumer electronics are not boutique/luxury goods and haven't been for a long time. They're cheaper than competitor hardware with similar specs. Even Samsung CE, a member of Samsung Group which makes the most expensive components that go into Apple's consumer electronics, can't compete with Apple on price due to Apple's volume and pre-emptive supply chain lockup.
It's getting kindof absurd seeing that hard drives keep getting bigger and cheaper. Would an iPod Touch really be that much thicker if it had 128 GB? And just how thick would (dare I say it) a 500 GB iPod Touch be? For the way I would use the device, I wouldn't mind a little extra thickness and weight.
iPod Classics = HDD based storage. iPod Touches = solid state based storage.
You might not mind the extra thickness and weight of HDD based Touch but you'd definitely mind the slower speed. Flash based 500GB? You would definitely mind the price.
Apple's non Mac consumer electronics are not boutique/luxury goods and haven't been for a long time. They're cheaper than competitor hardware with similar specs. Even Samsung CE, a member of Samsung Group which makes the most expensive components that go into Apple's consumer electronics, can't compete with Apple on price due to Apple's volume and pre-emptive supply chain lockup.
It's getting kindof absurd seeing that hard drives keep getting bigger and cheaper. Would an iPod Touch really be that much thicker if it had 128 GB? And just how thick would (dare I say it) a 500 GB iPod Touch be? For the way I would use the device, I wouldn't mind a little extra thickness and weight.
iPod Classics = HDD based storage. iPod Touches = solid state based storage.
You might not mind the extra thickness and weight of HDD based Touch but you'd definitely mind the slower speed. Flash based 500GB? You would definitely mind the price.
puckhead193
Sep 14, 11:12 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the multiplayer stinks? (team slayer) :o
There's no guns to switch, the jet pack is a total crap I'll just fly around and you can't shoot me and you can't kill me because there is no rocket launcher or laser. Am I missing something?
There's no guns to switch, the jet pack is a total crap I'll just fly around and you can't shoot me and you can't kill me because there is no rocket launcher or laser. Am I missing something?
NT1440
Mar 30, 08:09 PM
American foreign policy has indeed come up quite short in the foresight department. However, Khadahphee (or however it gets spelt) rose to power with no real assistance from other countries and has only been supported indirectly, through people buying oil. The only support Libya gets from the US is indirect, from irresponsible excess in oil consumption that keeps the prices up for everyone.
You'd be right except for our military ties to Libya.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/24/did-qaddafi-deserve-funding-foreign-aid-scrutiny-amid-mideast-unrest/
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/us_libya_arms_training
Seems we've played a significant role in arming Libya in recent history, though not nearly as much as European nations.
You'd be right except for our military ties to Libya.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/24/did-qaddafi-deserve-funding-foreign-aid-scrutiny-amid-mideast-unrest/
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/us_libya_arms_training
Seems we've played a significant role in arming Libya in recent history, though not nearly as much as European nations.
dizastor
Sep 6, 10:19 AM
They all still have that big fugly chin. Headless conroe mac and new displays next tuesday?
Neuro
Sep 12, 05:08 PM
Repair your permissions before and after each install. Mine did some correction to iTunes framework.
Agreed, good advice. Isn't a bit sad we have to do this on a 'cutting-edge' OS in 2006?!
Surely Mac OS X needs an installer that audits permissions on the fly?
Agreed, good advice. Isn't a bit sad we have to do this on a 'cutting-edge' OS in 2006?!
Surely Mac OS X needs an installer that audits permissions on the fly?
drummerdude1390
May 4, 10:49 PM
great plan
hulugu
Mar 30, 12:58 AM
The key point facilitating foreign intervention in Libya is the fact that one of the factions in this civil war invited us to participate, within certain limitations. This is not an invasion, nor is it unilateral action by any party. The entire affair is predicated on 1) The Libyan opposition's call for help and 2) A UN resolution sanctioning the use of force in Libya, with support froom the Arab league (and in this case NATO as well). The actions retain legitimacy so long as this broad coalition can be maintained. Obama has never suggested that the US should or would be involved except as part of a coalition.
Finally, it is clear that Obama is flouting neither the constitution nor congress by these actions. Any claim to the contrary is either misinformed or disingenuous. That isn't to say I am enthusiastic about the affair, or that I complately agree with the president's war powers as they currently stand.
But Republicans are trying hard to get maximum political mileage out of their criticisms, with the result that they are overstepping the mark.
I agree.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Looking at the history, Congress has often taken a backseat to presidential authority on these matters going back as far as Apache wars (1840-1886). Moreover, even in the modern age after the War Powers Act, four administrators have invaded five countries without express Congressional approval�the Iraq AMF being an abdication rather than an express declaration of war.
Reagan invaded Grenada; Bush invaded Panama, Iraq, and Somalia; and Clinton bombed the Serbians.
Moreover, the Korean war also went without an express Congressional approval, rather it operated under UNSCR order. Vietnam was operated under a manner similar to the Iraq War, without an express declaration of war, but with authorization by Congress.
Rather than looking at it as a power-grab, you should instead evaluate whether or not the use of force in the above instances fits within the paradigm of Libya. I think it does.
The specific application of force by US warplanes under UN auspices, with request by the rebels and the Arab League should give the operation any legal cover it should need in both International and US law. Moreover, since NATO is also involved, our treaty obligations require us to act as well.
Finally, it is clear that Obama is flouting neither the constitution nor congress by these actions. Any claim to the contrary is either misinformed or disingenuous. That isn't to say I am enthusiastic about the affair, or that I complately agree with the president's war powers as they currently stand.
But Republicans are trying hard to get maximum political mileage out of their criticisms, with the result that they are overstepping the mark.
I agree.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Looking at the history, Congress has often taken a backseat to presidential authority on these matters going back as far as Apache wars (1840-1886). Moreover, even in the modern age after the War Powers Act, four administrators have invaded five countries without express Congressional approval�the Iraq AMF being an abdication rather than an express declaration of war.
Reagan invaded Grenada; Bush invaded Panama, Iraq, and Somalia; and Clinton bombed the Serbians.
Moreover, the Korean war also went without an express Congressional approval, rather it operated under UNSCR order. Vietnam was operated under a manner similar to the Iraq War, without an express declaration of war, but with authorization by Congress.
Rather than looking at it as a power-grab, you should instead evaluate whether or not the use of force in the above instances fits within the paradigm of Libya. I think it does.
The specific application of force by US warplanes under UN auspices, with request by the rebels and the Arab League should give the operation any legal cover it should need in both International and US law. Moreover, since NATO is also involved, our treaty obligations require us to act as well.
legacyb4
Nov 8, 08:43 AM
The 2.0 model also includes 4MB L2 cache instead of "just" 2MB L2 cache... remember the days when we used to measure L2 in increments of 256KB?
Yes, it drives people to buy the 2.0 model and YES it drives away the others that are not prepared to spend this extra 200$....
:mad:
Yes, it drives people to buy the 2.0 model and YES it drives away the others that are not prepared to spend this extra 200$....
:mad:
maclaptop
May 4, 09:56 PM
man i wish 3D would just disappear...
You've said it best!
You've said it best!
Full of Win
Apr 2, 11:30 AM
I believe Apple did go with a larger sensor in the iPhone 4.
They kept the same pixel size as from before, but made the sensor larger to increase the number of pixels. It's also uses backlit illumination, per Steve Jobs.
They kept the same pixel size as from before, but made the sensor larger to increase the number of pixels. It's also uses backlit illumination, per Steve Jobs.
japanime
Oct 28, 07:38 PM
LOL. YOu fell fgor it. Awesome :D
I didn't fall for it.
And you're an idiot.
Seriously, these forums are so Mac users can help one another. What kind of little person gets joy out of posting false information that could cause another person grief or concern?
I didn't fall for it.
And you're an idiot.
Seriously, these forums are so Mac users can help one another. What kind of little person gets joy out of posting false information that could cause another person grief or concern?
3N16MA
Nov 23, 09:45 PM
It's not wasting money. Buying a digital copy results in higher quality than ripping the original vinyl albums, and buying remastered releases results in better quality than original releases.
Just because you don't have the ability to understand the importance or the appeal of Beatles music doesn't mean those who can are wasting money by buying what they like. It's really amazing how many posters like to criticize something, just because they don't personally like it. That's why millions of musicians can be successful, because there are so many musical tastes.
Like what you like. Buy what you want. But don't be so infantile as to attack those whose tastes differ from yours.
You quoted me before I added my final part at the bottom (it was the whole point to my post which I accidentally deleted changing the font size.). I was one of the people who thought everyone already owned their music who really wanted it. Apparently having The Beatles on iTunes appealed to a new generation of fans. I'm sure some people repurchased for the sake of supporting the Beatles. I would not doubt they have fans that dedicated. All your other stuff about understanding the importance of the Beatles is just gibberish to me. People love to overestimate their importance and act like they are the greatest thing to happen in the past 100 years.
Just because you don't have the ability to understand the importance or the appeal of Beatles music doesn't mean those who can are wasting money by buying what they like. It's really amazing how many posters like to criticize something, just because they don't personally like it. That's why millions of musicians can be successful, because there are so many musical tastes.
Like what you like. Buy what you want. But don't be so infantile as to attack those whose tastes differ from yours.
You quoted me before I added my final part at the bottom (it was the whole point to my post which I accidentally deleted changing the font size.). I was one of the people who thought everyone already owned their music who really wanted it. Apparently having The Beatles on iTunes appealed to a new generation of fans. I'm sure some people repurchased for the sake of supporting the Beatles. I would not doubt they have fans that dedicated. All your other stuff about understanding the importance of the Beatles is just gibberish to me. People love to overestimate their importance and act like they are the greatest thing to happen in the past 100 years.
Alvi
Mar 21, 03:40 PM
That's an awesome PR Stunt...
spicyapple
Aug 24, 12:49 PM
Is it 1.1, 1.3 or 1.8 million laptop batteries?
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 11:22 AM
Come on guys, all of you saying the Vista is for $99, remember... that is the "upgrade" not the full install. where as osx is a complete full install. plus vista is suppose to be coming in 6 different version, i read something about that at here (http://www.theinquirer.net).
That is also a misleading statement.
Apple doesn't offer upgrades to OS X. Windows does! Most people don't need a complete new install. Most people already have XP.
The only time a full version is needed is when a new computer is purchased and then the price for Vista is completely different because of the OEM pricing by the vendor.
Also just because you have the upgrade version doesn't mean you can't do a clean full install. In most cases Windows in the past only required that a previous version be present or that a legal original install cd was present. It performs the check and then does a full install.
That is also a misleading statement.
Apple doesn't offer upgrades to OS X. Windows does! Most people don't need a complete new install. Most people already have XP.
The only time a full version is needed is when a new computer is purchased and then the price for Vista is completely different because of the OEM pricing by the vendor.
Also just because you have the upgrade version doesn't mean you can't do a clean full install. In most cases Windows in the past only required that a previous version be present or that a legal original install cd was present. It performs the check and then does a full install.
Maximillian
Mar 28, 09:22 PM
Same here. Guess a trip to Vegas is in order.
Sadly, Vegas will cost you more for a week than SF (if you want to do it "right").
Sadly, Vegas will cost you more for a week than SF (if you want to do it "right").
Doctor Q
Nov 27, 11:39 AM
is this really a big deal?
Seriously, The Beatles were great, I would think by now most people have their songs.I'm often surprised to meet a new Beatles fan who "inherited" their interest from their parents. And the publicity surrounding an iTunes debut would add to that interest.
I wonder if they'll have a "complete catalog" package?
Seriously, The Beatles were great, I would think by now most people have their songs.I'm often surprised to meet a new Beatles fan who "inherited" their interest from their parents. And the publicity surrounding an iTunes debut would add to that interest.
I wonder if they'll have a "complete catalog" package?
MonkeySee....
Nov 24, 11:12 AM
I'm curious. Anybody know where all that money goes? How much does Apple (the computer company) get vs. music companies vs. the two remaining Beatles? I heard that Michael Jackson owned the rights to a lot of Beatles songs - and now he's gone too. Any place this can be looked at?
Rich :cool:
Thats a good point! I know Jacko had out bid McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs but i too wonder who owns them now?
Rich :cool:
Thats a good point! I know Jacko had out bid McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs but i too wonder who owns them now?
MacAztec
Oct 11, 12:46 AM
I think its Apple's fault. Motorola too. Apple always says how an 800MHz Powerbook is better at x and x than a PC, but the PC is still faster at like everything.
Its motorolas problem for not makin faster chips! But its Apples fault for not moving to IBM by now, and Apple is just accepting that they are barely over 1GHz when PCs are moving up on 3GHz
Its motorolas problem for not makin faster chips! But its Apples fault for not moving to IBM by now, and Apple is just accepting that they are barely over 1GHz when PCs are moving up on 3GHz
Lennholm
Apr 2, 06:25 PM
Nintendo makes products for 6 year old girls.
Yeah, just as Apple makes products for non-techies that can't think for themselves, right?
Yeah, just as Apple makes products for non-techies that can't think for themselves, right?
Blue Fox
May 5, 01:20 AM
I'm betting..............no.
What Apple WILL end up eventually doing is getting a retina display into the iPad whether it be iPad 3, 4 or whenever it's ready. I don't see Apple jumping on the gimmicky 3D band wagon.
What Apple WILL end up eventually doing is getting a retina display into the iPad whether it be iPad 3, 4 or whenever it's ready. I don't see Apple jumping on the gimmicky 3D band wagon.