manu chao
Sep 14, 07:59 PM
Spend your energy on working a few extra hours so you can pay for a RAM upgrade or a 7200 RPM hard drive.
Done. :D
Done. :D
HecubusPro
Sep 4, 07:56 PM
I'm confused. Movie downloads for $10?!? What happened to the whole "Jobs is hammered by the movie industry into movie rentals only" ?!? This CANNOT possibly mean renting a movie for $10!! :eek:
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
Rumors are rampant, but they do bring up a good point, as you do here. Who would want to watch a movie on an iPod? (Well, actually, I have and I do, but that's beside the point.)
The Appleinsider rumor at least makes sense from an itunes/tv/movie purchase standpoint. Renting would be sort of a PITA. Who would want to download a good quality movie, often taking hours or days, unless you have a lot of people torrenting at the same time, just to have it accessible for a week or so? Not me.
This will be a movie purchase service. You buy the movie, DL it from itunes, then do what you want to with it. Watch it on you computer, rip it to DVD and watch it on your TV, run it through an air tunes like device so you don't have to rip it if you don't want.
It sounds pretty interesting to me. We'll see when it happens. Regardless, the quality is going to have be pretty good for people to want to watch them on their TV's. Offering 700mb .avi rips just won't cut it.
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
Rumors are rampant, but they do bring up a good point, as you do here. Who would want to watch a movie on an iPod? (Well, actually, I have and I do, but that's beside the point.)
The Appleinsider rumor at least makes sense from an itunes/tv/movie purchase standpoint. Renting would be sort of a PITA. Who would want to download a good quality movie, often taking hours or days, unless you have a lot of people torrenting at the same time, just to have it accessible for a week or so? Not me.
This will be a movie purchase service. You buy the movie, DL it from itunes, then do what you want to with it. Watch it on you computer, rip it to DVD and watch it on your TV, run it through an air tunes like device so you don't have to rip it if you don't want.
It sounds pretty interesting to me. We'll see when it happens. Regardless, the quality is going to have be pretty good for people to want to watch them on their TV's. Offering 700mb .avi rips just won't cut it.
miranon
Aug 28, 05:53 PM
They were not the first with core duo, nor with woodrest.
bpaluzzi
Apr 20, 12:09 PM
I can't dumb this statement down any further, sorry.
You certainly can't make that statement any dumber, that's true.
You certainly can't make that statement any dumber, that's true.
cube
Apr 22, 01:08 PM
Just like all of the netbooks with optical drives make the MBA look bad? :rolleyes:
Netbooks do not have optical drives. Ultraportables do.
The MBA looks good as a netbook. It looks bad as an ultraportable.
MBA and MBP are two different markets.
MBA is for people that want light. MBP is for people that want a full featured notebook.
So you want a big MBA.
If they could have the same processors, that would happen already at 13".
Netbooks do not have optical drives. Ultraportables do.
The MBA looks good as a netbook. It looks bad as an ultraportable.
MBA and MBP are two different markets.
MBA is for people that want light. MBP is for people that want a full featured notebook.
So you want a big MBA.
If they could have the same processors, that would happen already at 13".
paradox00
Apr 15, 10:16 AM
It's be a good idea if Thunderbolt was capable of handling USB 3 as well, like the thunderbolt port in the MacBook Pro can also do mini display.
I guess that way it'd at least be used more, but also nobody would be uncertain about getting Thunderbolt because they know even if it is a flop the port is still useful...
It is, provided the system supports USB 3.0 which the current macs do not (but IvyBridge ones will). The only reason people think it will flop is because they don't understand what it is (it's an extension of the PCIe bus, not a USB 3.0 replacement).
I guess that way it'd at least be used more, but also nobody would be uncertain about getting Thunderbolt because they know even if it is a flop the port is still useful...
It is, provided the system supports USB 3.0 which the current macs do not (but IvyBridge ones will). The only reason people think it will flop is because they don't understand what it is (it's an extension of the PCIe bus, not a USB 3.0 replacement).
MattInOz
Sep 5, 05:48 PM
i know, but in that case apple has to port front row to windows. Or they have to implement front row into itunes or something like that, so that it will work exactly the same way on windows as on mac. as long as they have itunes installed. but that way, all media files (movie store movies, avi, divx, video_ts folders and even photo's) should be stored inside itunes.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
torbjoern
Apr 25, 01:31 AM
Is the story even plausible?
http://tapatalk.com/mu/2e0fe4ce-153e-aadb.jpg
http://tapatalk.com/mu/2e0fe4ce-153e-aadb.jpg
Number 41
Mar 23, 05:26 PM
If any of you had ever lost someone or had someone that you loved seriously injured by a drunk driver - you'd want this app pulled.
0 good can come from drunk driving. I don't know anyone (intelligent person) who would say otherwise. Constitutional or not, who in the world would want to encourage a drunk person to get behind the wheel? ..which is exactly what these apps do. I'm sure that there's a percentage of drunk drivers who have ventured out on the roads only because they had the convenience of these apps - when otherwise, they would have gotten a ride or sobered up first.
I stop listening to anyone who ever utters the words "Constitutional or not..."
Our basic freedoms as Americans aren't worth conceding for any reason whatsoever, no matter how noble the goal may seem from a distance.
0 good can come from drunk driving. I don't know anyone (intelligent person) who would say otherwise. Constitutional or not, who in the world would want to encourage a drunk person to get behind the wheel? ..which is exactly what these apps do. I'm sure that there's a percentage of drunk drivers who have ventured out on the roads only because they had the convenience of these apps - when otherwise, they would have gotten a ride or sobered up first.
I stop listening to anyone who ever utters the words "Constitutional or not..."
Our basic freedoms as Americans aren't worth conceding for any reason whatsoever, no matter how noble the goal may seem from a distance.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
LagunaSol
Mar 22, 01:17 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.
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
Stewie
Sep 26, 08:27 AM
Yeah, this is pretty exciting news. I had already planned to call Verizon this morning to see when my contract is up.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah I don't think that is going to happen. I can't see Apple making a CDMA phone just for Verizon/Sprint. Making a GSM phone, especially if it is quad-band, would allow them to only make 1 phone for the world market.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah I don't think that is going to happen. I can't see Apple making a CDMA phone just for Verizon/Sprint. Making a GSM phone, especially if it is quad-band, would allow them to only make 1 phone for the world market.
cere
Apr 14, 01:24 PM
Guys, should I buy now or wa......
A Mac? Why not?
A Mac? Why not?
MacRumors
Apr 4, 11:39 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/04/attempted-apple-store-holdup-goes-bad-suspect-killed/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/04/123733-otay_ranch_store.jpg
Apple's Otay Ranch retail store
San Diego 6 reports (http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Suspect-Killed-Two-Arrested-in-Apple-Store-Hold/4tTtOBhLMEW7QTRlIW-9CA.cspx) that an attempted holdup at Apple's Otay Ranch retail store (http://www.apple.com/retail/otayranch/) in Chula Vista, California went sour this morning, with one of the robbers reportedly having been shot and killed by a mall security guard.A security guard caught the suspects smashing the glass front doors of the Apple Store at the mall before the mall opened for the day.
The guard reportedly shot a male suspect in the head. NBC San Diego reports (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Shooting-Reported-at-Otay-Ranch-Town-Center-119181734.html) that two other suspects, one of whom had also been shot, have been arrested. The incident happened shortly before 7:00 AM this morning, before the store had opened for business.
Article Link: Attempted Apple Store Holdup Goes Bad: Suspect Killed (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/04/attempted-apple-store-holdup-goes-bad-suspect-killed/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/04/123733-otay_ranch_store.jpg
Apple's Otay Ranch retail store
San Diego 6 reports (http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Suspect-Killed-Two-Arrested-in-Apple-Store-Hold/4tTtOBhLMEW7QTRlIW-9CA.cspx) that an attempted holdup at Apple's Otay Ranch retail store (http://www.apple.com/retail/otayranch/) in Chula Vista, California went sour this morning, with one of the robbers reportedly having been shot and killed by a mall security guard.A security guard caught the suspects smashing the glass front doors of the Apple Store at the mall before the mall opened for the day.
The guard reportedly shot a male suspect in the head. NBC San Diego reports (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Shooting-Reported-at-Otay-Ranch-Town-Center-119181734.html) that two other suspects, one of whom had also been shot, have been arrested. The incident happened shortly before 7:00 AM this morning, before the store had opened for business.
Article Link: Attempted Apple Store Holdup Goes Bad: Suspect Killed (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/04/attempted-apple-store-holdup-goes-bad-suspect-killed/)
mdntcallr
Sep 10, 09:37 AM
I'd like to see merom in MBP
I'd really like to see the conroe, and conroe replacement in a mid sized tower/media center.
something bigger and better than the mac mini, more powerful than the imac. no integrated display. good upgradability and of course.... priced between the imac and tower. accounting for NO display included, ie about same price as imac. or even a little less.
I'd really like to see the conroe, and conroe replacement in a mid sized tower/media center.
something bigger and better than the mac mini, more powerful than the imac. no integrated display. good upgradability and of course.... priced between the imac and tower. accounting for NO display included, ie about same price as imac. or even a little less.
AidenShaw
Sep 11, 05:43 PM
Aiden, it's just not like you to make a statement like this without adding the links...
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html ;)
Note the Dell Precision Workstation 390 (Conroe) and the Precision Workstation 690 (Xeon 5100).
3 GHz Xeon - 2775
2.93 GHz Conroe Extreme - 2872
That "horrible buffered memory" is about a 3.5% handicap....at most. (The memory, chipsets, motherboards are all different.)
And one shouldn't say "but the FB-DIMMs are clocked faster" - the buffering is what enables the faster clock, as well as what adds the latency. The two tend to balance out, and the net result is that you can put 64 GiB of RAM on the Xeon - which you couldn't do without buffering!
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html ;)
Note the Dell Precision Workstation 390 (Conroe) and the Precision Workstation 690 (Xeon 5100).
3 GHz Xeon - 2775
2.93 GHz Conroe Extreme - 2872
That "horrible buffered memory" is about a 3.5% handicap....at most. (The memory, chipsets, motherboards are all different.)
And one shouldn't say "but the FB-DIMMs are clocked faster" - the buffering is what enables the faster clock, as well as what adds the latency. The two tend to balance out, and the net result is that you can put 64 GiB of RAM on the Xeon - which you couldn't do without buffering!
to1986
Apr 4, 11:51 AM
I hope this was in self defence. There is no other reason for him shooting the guy in the head. I hope he has an excuse, otherwise he may find himself in prison for a long time.
blahblah100
Mar 30, 01:35 PM
An .exe is an executable, not an application. Some people may have called them applications, but not MS. Never. Until now.
Again, you are wrong.
Again, you are wrong.
milo
Aug 28, 04:09 PM
Some of us don't have time to wait, my friend. Some of us need these things for school, which starts shortly. Very shortly. And a customized MacBook already takes 1-2 weeks to get to you. Which means I need to order by september 5th at the latest.
So order it.
I was talking about people who buy a machine and immediately consider returning it.
So order it.
I was talking about people who buy a machine and immediately consider returning it.
Blakeco123
Mar 23, 05:49 PM
Do it apple!!!
I agree with you. if someone is drunk and is still able to operate the app they could be a hazard if they avoid these points.
I agree with you. if someone is drunk and is still able to operate the app they could be a hazard if they avoid these points.
morespce54
Apr 4, 12:10 PM
Anybody responsible for guarding should have a gun. If the person isn't qualified to carry a gun, they he/she isn't qualified to guard anything and shouldn't be a guard.
When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.
Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?
Maybe you're right, maybe not... I mean, I doubt the guys went in in Kevlar suit saying "we take the loot, not matter what. If someones try to stop us, we kill him". In a bank robbery maybe they would but I doubt they were ready to kill somebody only for a few iPads...
But that's just me.
When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.
Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?
Maybe you're right, maybe not... I mean, I doubt the guys went in in Kevlar suit saying "we take the loot, not matter what. If someones try to stop us, we kill him". In a bank robbery maybe they would but I doubt they were ready to kill somebody only for a few iPads...
But that's just me.
MacRumors
Apr 25, 12:50 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/next-macbook-pro-to-get-new-case-design/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/013535-mbp.jpg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/013535-mbp.jpg
Dave00
Mar 29, 12:58 PM
It's utter silliness to try to predict market share for four years from now. Especially laughable that they try to predict it to the tenth of a percentage point. Four years way more than enough time for a new player to come in and dominate the field, not to mention time for a new kind of phone/device to appear.
Dave
Dave
ctdonath
Apr 4, 12:43 PM
And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd.
Happens about 2,000,000 times a year. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. You don't hear much about that because (A) our media doesn't like to report "good" shootings, and (B) about 97% of the time no shooting is required, as the criminal gets the idea quick and stops threatening innocents in a hurry.
Happens about 2,000,000 times a year. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. You don't hear much about that because (A) our media doesn't like to report "good" shootings, and (B) about 97% of the time no shooting is required, as the criminal gets the idea quick and stops threatening innocents in a hurry.