Lollypop
Sep 10, 06:36 AM
Powerbook G5 tomorrow!!! LOL ok, ok.. before someone shoots me .....
I would really like a mid range mac, and kentsfield would be ideal! Everyone is worried about such a machine taking away sales from either the Mac Pro or the imac, but I still say apple should just be smart enough and feature it so that people either have to to imac, mac extreme or mac pro. 2 pci express slots, single optical drive, smaller amount of total memory, instead of having people have to go for the mac pro why cant apple make the mac pro the real high end workstation and have something smaller be a the mainstream workstation?
I would really like a mid range mac, and kentsfield would be ideal! Everyone is worried about such a machine taking away sales from either the Mac Pro or the imac, but I still say apple should just be smart enough and feature it so that people either have to to imac, mac extreme or mac pro. 2 pci express slots, single optical drive, smaller amount of total memory, instead of having people have to go for the mac pro why cant apple make the mac pro the real high end workstation and have something smaller be a the mainstream workstation?
amberashby
Sep 12, 09:11 PM
I just updated my 5G, but I don't see the search function. Anyone else?
jeremyb66
Apr 4, 12:01 PM
This is what you get when you (criminals) don't want to be part of society!! Take note criminals there will be REAL! repercussions for your actions.
juicedropsdeuce
Mar 22, 02:58 PM
Please bring back the 24"! 21" - too small. 27" - too big. 24" - just right!
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
Nobody wants the 24". That's why they stopped making it. It was useless.
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
Nobody wants the 24". That's why they stopped making it. It was useless.
ericmooreart
Mar 30, 12:57 PM
News Flash 2013 Apple trademarks:
Clothing Store, Shoe Store, Hardware Store, Candy Store and Mayonnaise
Clothing Store, Shoe Store, Hardware Store, Candy Store and Mayonnaise
izzle22
Oct 12, 08:24 PM
Ultimately: who cares?
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
Bono has done more good to the world musicly and giving wise than most muscians.
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
Bono has done more good to the world musicly and giving wise than most muscians.
j-traxx
Apr 11, 11:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
if you have marantz speakers...... you have 40 dollars.
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
if you have marantz speakers...... you have 40 dollars.
gloss
Sep 26, 09:46 AM
I'm surprised at all the Cingular hate here. At least in the D.C. area, the word is that they have the best coverage available - better than Verizon, who was the previous benchmark before the merger.
roland.g
Sep 10, 10:09 PM
I guess there are three types of people in the world:
1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.
I have chatted with you, and after originally considering a Mini or iMac, I have ruled out the Mini, and now would either get an iMac or a Mac Pro, however while there is only a $100 difference between (see this thread) what I would get in those 2 machines (and that is before spending more $$ down the road for a 23" ACD), I still feel that the Mac Pro is overkill for me and yet I don't like the iMac AIO, though I would change my mind if it looked like a 23" ACD. The white turns me off. I really only want 1 screen, while I have used 2 I don't really need it. Likewise I like the 30" but have no need for something that big. A 23-24" is perfect for me. I might even wall mount it. And I liked the idea of the Mini, just not the performance. So I find myself saying I will make up my mind soon, but hoping the Mac Pro Jr. shows up before I do. Because I too want to add a second HDD. And I would gladly spend $2,700 - 3,300 for a 2.33 or so Mac Pro Jr, with 2GB RAM 2 250GB HDDs, 256MB VRAM, BT & Airport, BT keyboard & MM, 23" ACD & Applecare after EDU discount.
1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.
I have chatted with you, and after originally considering a Mini or iMac, I have ruled out the Mini, and now would either get an iMac or a Mac Pro, however while there is only a $100 difference between (see this thread) what I would get in those 2 machines (and that is before spending more $$ down the road for a 23" ACD), I still feel that the Mac Pro is overkill for me and yet I don't like the iMac AIO, though I would change my mind if it looked like a 23" ACD. The white turns me off. I really only want 1 screen, while I have used 2 I don't really need it. Likewise I like the 30" but have no need for something that big. A 23-24" is perfect for me. I might even wall mount it. And I liked the idea of the Mini, just not the performance. So I find myself saying I will make up my mind soon, but hoping the Mac Pro Jr. shows up before I do. Because I too want to add a second HDD. And I would gladly spend $2,700 - 3,300 for a 2.33 or so Mac Pro Jr, with 2GB RAM 2 250GB HDDs, 256MB VRAM, BT & Airport, BT keyboard & MM, 23" ACD & Applecare after EDU discount.
0815
Apr 20, 12:35 PM
Doesn't every GPS based phone have something like this?
Every cell phone is tracked .... don't know how many store it on the local device (out of reach for anyone except you), but the tracking data from every cell phone is stored on the providers servers and/or government servers - law enforcement could access that information in almost real time.
Every cell phone is tracked .... don't know how many store it on the local device (out of reach for anyone except you), but the tracking data from every cell phone is stored on the providers servers and/or government servers - law enforcement could access that information in almost real time.
philstubbington
Apr 20, 11:37 AM
If you tie this story to the recent news from Michigan that cops there are able to suck the data off of your phone at a traffic stop, then this is really frightening.
You can get sucked off at a traffic stop by a cop in Michigan? Must make sure I never go to Michigan!:D
You can get sucked off at a traffic stop by a cop in Michigan? Must make sure I never go to Michigan!:D
ChrisTX
Apr 25, 06:44 PM
Just purchased the latest refresh of the MacBook Pro to replace a a 2006 model, and couldn't be happier with my purchase. I had a hunch the next refresh would be a case redesign, still no regrets.
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
vansouza
Sep 9, 05:41 PM
world peace... cool... an iMac on every desk and an iPhone in every pocket.:D
steve_hill4
Oct 27, 10:11 AM
[QUOTE=Dunepilot]I didn't even know there was an Expo on!QUOTE]
Oh it's on. It's nowhere near as big as MacWorld San Francisco or MacWorld Paris, but Mac Expo London is pretty good for those in the UK that don't want to travel too far. �12 per person on the door, but the first 5000 to order in advance got tickets for free, (including me, off there tomorrow).
From the Green point of view, I would want Apple to be as green as the fruit they name themselves after. I am all for recycling, minimising energy consumption and many other environmental issues. I don't however want to have to buy some godawful PC just on the basis of their green record. For example, why do all the Apple computers have to ship with the box, wrapped in a plastic bag, surrounded in polystyrene, inside another box? Surely Apple can reduce the amount and layers of packaging and make another smaller step to a decent green record.
Hope they're back tomorrow and I can have a small chat with them at some point.
Oh it's on. It's nowhere near as big as MacWorld San Francisco or MacWorld Paris, but Mac Expo London is pretty good for those in the UK that don't want to travel too far. �12 per person on the door, but the first 5000 to order in advance got tickets for free, (including me, off there tomorrow).
From the Green point of view, I would want Apple to be as green as the fruit they name themselves after. I am all for recycling, minimising energy consumption and many other environmental issues. I don't however want to have to buy some godawful PC just on the basis of their green record. For example, why do all the Apple computers have to ship with the box, wrapped in a plastic bag, surrounded in polystyrene, inside another box? Surely Apple can reduce the amount and layers of packaging and make another smaller step to a decent green record.
Hope they're back tomorrow and I can have a small chat with them at some point.
toddybody
Apr 19, 08:14 AM
This is the GUI wars all over again... Last time Apple sued Microsoft for copying their GUI desktop to make Windows....
(and no Xerox didn't invent that they invented windowing not really a desktop Apple did that bit.)
Anyway Apple lost and Microsoft took over the world while Apple dwindled to a market share of less than 5%.
I don't think they want that to happen this time....
Youre worried that Samsung Phones will start outselling iPhones? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one man! Good one!
Seriously though, I dont think Apple has anything to worry about...and should stop being so flippant in their lawsuites. What happens when Apple incorporates some much needed Android-esque notification system in iOS? Sorry, but rounded edged square icons and side swiping UI isnt unique. Leave Sammy alone Apple!
(and no Xerox didn't invent that they invented windowing not really a desktop Apple did that bit.)
Anyway Apple lost and Microsoft took over the world while Apple dwindled to a market share of less than 5%.
I don't think they want that to happen this time....
Youre worried that Samsung Phones will start outselling iPhones? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one man! Good one!
Seriously though, I dont think Apple has anything to worry about...and should stop being so flippant in their lawsuites. What happens when Apple incorporates some much needed Android-esque notification system in iOS? Sorry, but rounded edged square icons and side swiping UI isnt unique. Leave Sammy alone Apple!
Eraserhead
Sep 19, 05:20 PM
FWIW $50M/year is ~0.2% of Disney's revenue (they made ~$30B/year for the past few years). Definitely not chicken feed, but not earth shattering either.
B
That's revenue not profit, their profit was $5 billion in 2005 so $50M is about 1% of that, remember that the money from iTunes is practically all profit as their are no real costs for Disney (other than giving Apple a few video files which probably costs $100 000 a year maximum.)
B
That's revenue not profit, their profit was $5 billion in 2005 so $50M is about 1% of that, remember that the money from iTunes is practically all profit as their are no real costs for Disney (other than giving Apple a few video files which probably costs $100 000 a year maximum.)
williedigital
Sep 13, 10:52 PM
Two things
1) it seems like people are overexagerating with the "having to slide the clickwheel up to call anyone" thing. Everyone I know uses a contact list almost exclusively, something which could very easily be incorporated into the standard ipod interface (already is sort of). Calling the odd number i'd be fine with sliding it up. Perhaps they could introduce some really innovative contact list stuff software wise to make it even less necessary to "dial" people.
2) Maybe all the touchscreen stuff we think is for the video ipod is really for the phone and the dialpad and clickwheel both use a touch sensitive thing to work.
1) it seems like people are overexagerating with the "having to slide the clickwheel up to call anyone" thing. Everyone I know uses a contact list almost exclusively, something which could very easily be incorporated into the standard ipod interface (already is sort of). Calling the odd number i'd be fine with sliding it up. Perhaps they could introduce some really innovative contact list stuff software wise to make it even less necessary to "dial" people.
2) Maybe all the touchscreen stuff we think is for the video ipod is really for the phone and the dialpad and clickwheel both use a touch sensitive thing to work.
NebulaClash
Mar 30, 11:52 AM
Oooh! Grammar Nazis fighting for high stakes!
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Amnak
Apr 22, 01:47 AM
I do want this but, i actually want wireless sync more. And some other things i cant really think of at the moment. Maybe iOS5 :/
hdsalinas
Aug 28, 03:27 PM
my cat has told me that there will be a 23" chin-less iMac with the new Core 2 Duo chips, 1gig std, wireless kbd and mouse std. Or he is just hungry - hard to tell just what he is saying but he has friends in high places (trees mostly)
still heres hoping he's spot on
This would be great.
Apple, offer the 23" screen at the same price the 20" is now and the "new" 20 with the 17�s price. Also, go ahead and surprise everyone by releasing Leopard for Christmas. Oh, and BTW, if you upgrade the memory to 1GB, make it just a single1GB stick and not two 512. (I want to be able to buy a sencond 1GB stick later on without wasting memory)
still heres hoping he's spot on
This would be great.
Apple, offer the 23" screen at the same price the 20" is now and the "new" 20 with the 17�s price. Also, go ahead and surprise everyone by releasing Leopard for Christmas. Oh, and BTW, if you upgrade the memory to 1GB, make it just a single1GB stick and not two 512. (I want to be able to buy a sencond 1GB stick later on without wasting memory)
daneoni
Sep 12, 03:14 PM
my thoughts exactly... there aren't that much of a difference, right??
anyway, hey, are the search functions gonna be attainable for the last 5gen ipod as well ? with the software update??? i wish that's the case......please
i've been desperately looking for the reasons as to stick to the old 5gen which i bought just yesterday
There are no major differences but if i were you i'd go back and trade for the new one or just return the iPod and order a new one. Your window is soo close not to upgrade.
It doesnt look like the new software features will be added to current 5G iPods. My iPod software just updated and only game functions were added.
anyway, hey, are the search functions gonna be attainable for the last 5gen ipod as well ? with the software update??? i wish that's the case......please
i've been desperately looking for the reasons as to stick to the old 5gen which i bought just yesterday
There are no major differences but if i were you i'd go back and trade for the new one or just return the iPod and order a new one. Your window is soo close not to upgrade.
It doesnt look like the new software features will be added to current 5G iPods. My iPod software just updated and only game functions were added.
Eidorian
Sep 9, 12:27 PM
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!It also depends if you can run multiple instances of that application. A little help here Multimedia? I know you've used multiple instances of Toast. Care to enlighten us on what other applications we can do the same? Maybe we should make a guide on it...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html
Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.
I thought so. We've beaten Core 2 Duo chips to death and their design.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html
Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.
I thought so. We've beaten Core 2 Duo chips to death and their design.