notjustjay
Mar 31, 10:53 AM
So how about a to-do list, hey Apple?
snap58
Jul 25, 07:32 PM
sounds interesting, though i have a feeling many people will just ignore the feature and end up touching the screen anyway, lol.
I am not going to read all 110 replies, so this may have already been put out there.
Remember the other patent with the LCD with the built in little photo cells, think these would know when something was above them?
The screen will have a clear scratch proof cover over it that you could touch if you wanted too.
I can't see people Not touching the screen, just hovering mm above it, no way.
I am not going to read all 110 replies, so this may have already been put out there.
Remember the other patent with the LCD with the built in little photo cells, think these would know when something was above them?
The screen will have a clear scratch proof cover over it that you could touch if you wanted too.
I can't see people Not touching the screen, just hovering mm above it, no way.
blackburn
Apr 22, 06:21 AM
3.. 2.. 1.. FIGHT (ding ding)
We are buying apple products and or samsung products so they can toss the money in lawyers instead of r&d. Somebody really toke the Gene Simmons approach: "Make sure there are no incursions. Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars. Don't let anybody cross that line.".
We are buying apple products and or samsung products so they can toss the money in lawyers instead of r&d. Somebody really toke the Gene Simmons approach: "Make sure there are no incursions. Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars. Don't let anybody cross that line.".
inmotion
Oct 24, 08:38 AM
did anyone notice that one http://www.apple.com/ca/macbookpro/specs.html
the base model has 2.6ghz dual core.... :rolleyes:
if only it was true haha
the base model has 2.6ghz dual core.... :rolleyes:
if only it was true haha
more...
The Maestro
Oct 24, 09:28 AM
i took the plunge
MacBook Pro, 15-inch, 2.33GHz
Part Number: MA610
2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs
SuperDrive 6x (DVD+R DL/DVD RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) & Mac OS (English)
Country kit
120GB Serial ATA drive (5400rpm)
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Ready to ship: 4 days
MacBook Pro, 15-inch, 2.33GHz
Part Number: MA610
2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs
SuperDrive 6x (DVD+R DL/DVD RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) & Mac OS (English)
Country kit
120GB Serial ATA drive (5400rpm)
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Ready to ship: 4 days
Moyank24
Apr 28, 12:48 PM
this is hard to dispute... :)
although in fairness, a sandwich maker was/will be an important character of this adventure
edit: at this point you should consider a temporary change of avatar
The best I can do on short notice...
although in fairness, a sandwich maker was/will be an important character of this adventure
edit: at this point you should consider a temporary change of avatar
The best I can do on short notice...
more...
twoodcc
Apr 24, 11:58 AM
well T-Mobile will be here for awhile anyways, so if they could get it on their network soon, i think it would be a good thing
twoodcc
Oct 18, 04:51 PM
way to go Apple! apple keeps looking better and better each year. i'm glad i'm here
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 14, 04:30 AM
It would be interesting to compare Fibre Channel with Thunderbolt. Apart from TB integrating video, TB looks a lot like an evolution of Fibre Channel.
Hum, you have no idea what Fiber channel is if you seriously claim that. Fiber channel is a networking protocol for storage essentially, Thunderbolt is a host based technology. Call me when Thunderbolt can be switched, redundant, do LUN provisioning and can be extended over a MAN to offer multi-site storage.
Hum, you have no idea what Fiber channel is if you seriously claim that. Fiber channel is a networking protocol for storage essentially, Thunderbolt is a host based technology. Call me when Thunderbolt can be switched, redundant, do LUN provisioning and can be extended over a MAN to offer multi-site storage.
Waybo
Apr 4, 04:57 PM
This is the absolute worst winter in the New England states ... I am disenchanted by any more snow and look forward to some warmth...
I keep going back to this iris ... the rich colors of spring popping out against the monotone stalks that feels so much like winter. I'm really glad you took the extra effort to keep the hint of color in the back flower as well. My 3" high daffodils were buried in 8" of snow on Thursday. It's all gone now, but I, too, and waiting for spring to arrive in New Hampshire!
I keep going back to this iris ... the rich colors of spring popping out against the monotone stalks that feels so much like winter. I'm really glad you took the extra effort to keep the hint of color in the back flower as well. My 3" high daffodils were buried in 8" of snow on Thursday. It's all gone now, but I, too, and waiting for spring to arrive in New Hampshire!
more...
br0adband
Nov 7, 04:04 AM
To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant" - and yes, I've had 4 kernel panics since I got this iMac home; that's more than the number of BSODs I've had under XP in 4 years.
Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.
Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.
You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.
On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).
So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.
Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:
I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:
It just works.
Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.
bb
Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.
Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...
Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.
Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.
You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.
On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).
So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.
Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:
I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:
It just works.
Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.
bb
Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.
Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...
crees!
Jul 26, 01:23 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings? It's possible but they better not do this (not release such a product). I WANT this.
more...
stroked
Apr 26, 11:05 PM
Almost as funny as your daughters face when she discovers that her dad is a brutal bigot who waits outside toilet doors to beat people up (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12453464&postcount=56).
Relax dude, your safe. You said that you used the mens room. What's wrong, did I actually guess your bra size?
Relax dude, your safe. You said that you used the mens room. What's wrong, did I actually guess your bra size?
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 07:25 PM
Anyone feel confident buying a white one given the problems they've had getting one made?
more...
wmk461
Jan 30, 05:39 PM
Interesting, considering there are only 194 recognized countries on Earth. Which planet are the other 6 countries located on?
Well after looking it up several reports state that about 130 countries have US occupied bases that are active... The point is we are overextended.
"It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.
These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.
For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
Well after looking it up several reports state that about 130 countries have US occupied bases that are active... The point is we are overextended.
"It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.
These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.
For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
vnle
Oct 31, 11:19 AM
Bowers & Wilkins MM-1 Computer Speakers
Any road bike with Aerospoke wheels :p
Any road bike with Aerospoke wheels :p
more...
macadam212
Apr 12, 11:58 AM
Ever since the iPhone came out I've said that it will eventually replace the iPod. That day may be coming sooner than we guessed.
Someday the iPhone will be just like the iPad. There's no 'iPod Touch,' just an 'iPhone' that you buy with or without a 3G or 4G chip. And it's up to you if you want to buy service to go along with it or not. (They could still call it the 'iPhone.' The chip-less one would come with a booklet telling you about Skype and Viber and other wifi phone services.)
Such a device would naturally go on sale before the holiday season, so maybe we're close to that happening. I don't think it'll be this year, but maybe they're getting us ready for the year when it does happen.
Does it really have to be one or the other, why can't both products exist happily.
Look the iPhone and iPod Touch are almost the same thing, and when the iPhone was introduced it was described as the best iPod ever. With that in mind it makes sense for them to be released at the same time. As for the other iPods they do exactly what you expect from a music player, they play music. Oh and they are still selling tones of them!
Someday the iPhone will be just like the iPad. There's no 'iPod Touch,' just an 'iPhone' that you buy with or without a 3G or 4G chip. And it's up to you if you want to buy service to go along with it or not. (They could still call it the 'iPhone.' The chip-less one would come with a booklet telling you about Skype and Viber and other wifi phone services.)
Such a device would naturally go on sale before the holiday season, so maybe we're close to that happening. I don't think it'll be this year, but maybe they're getting us ready for the year when it does happen.
Does it really have to be one or the other, why can't both products exist happily.
Look the iPhone and iPod Touch are almost the same thing, and when the iPhone was introduced it was described as the best iPod ever. With that in mind it makes sense for them to be released at the same time. As for the other iPods they do exactly what you expect from a music player, they play music. Oh and they are still selling tones of them!
Gugulino
Apr 1, 03:56 AM
It's done on purpose because we've been used to backwards scrolling all these years. Why should a mouse's scroll wheel control the scroll bar, and not the page you want to scroll? When you think about it, it's kind of silly to add that extra layer of abstraction when you don't need it.
Now it's been corrected - it takes almost no time to get used to it. Embrace it, and you'll be ok.
Yes, you are right! It is more natural… And you can even deactivate it in the trackpad settings, as JLL said. Not bad! It is difficult to go back to Snow Leo, where the scrolling goes with the scroll bar. Anyway, I will keep both ways of scrolling. Makes my brain flexible :)
Now it's been corrected - it takes almost no time to get used to it. Embrace it, and you'll be ok.
Yes, you are right! It is more natural… And you can even deactivate it in the trackpad settings, as JLL said. Not bad! It is difficult to go back to Snow Leo, where the scrolling goes with the scroll bar. Anyway, I will keep both ways of scrolling. Makes my brain flexible :)
42streetsdown
May 3, 09:09 AM
store's up - also - the macbook pro's are listed as new. Not sure if they were bumped recently, or if they slid them in with the imacs
the new sign is just still there from the February update
the new sign is just still there from the February update
SeaFox
Dec 2, 07:16 PM
I for one, welcome our new Adware overloards.
-1, Overrated
-1, Overrated
frito1224
May 4, 12:52 AM
Verizon in store rep told me that their version will be out in September
notromeel
Apr 12, 11:04 AM
Best comment on this thread!
I agree!
As a few others have said, the software is where it's at. Apple knows this. I dont think it really matters when they come out with another iPhone. They've got an amazing device with the iPhone 4 that can run pretty much anything normal people throw at it. If they can update the software to correct the few flaws it does have, it's going to be the perfect phone and the 5 will just further refine that. Everyone should really be focused on the conference in June.
I agree, mostly.
The next hardware advance will def have 4G, larger battery and A5.
I agree!
As a few others have said, the software is where it's at. Apple knows this. I dont think it really matters when they come out with another iPhone. They've got an amazing device with the iPhone 4 that can run pretty much anything normal people throw at it. If they can update the software to correct the few flaws it does have, it's going to be the perfect phone and the 5 will just further refine that. Everyone should really be focused on the conference in June.
I agree, mostly.
The next hardware advance will def have 4G, larger battery and A5.
macrumormonger
Apr 12, 12:09 AM
Currently on ebay as I'm about to part with it. :( What a beautiful lens.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5103/5611212257_8cf1d39515_b.jpg
Camera Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Exposure 0.02 sec (1/50)
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 27 mm
ISO Speed 2000
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5103/5611212257_8cf1d39515_b.jpg
Camera Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Exposure 0.02 sec (1/50)
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 27 mm
ISO Speed 2000
puma1552
Nov 15, 09:29 PM
Gotta say I disagree with you on that, I've always thought good quality clobber is worth the money.
Just for why is that I'm facing a new wardrobe after eleven+ years service from the last (I tend to do things periodically) when I had a half dozen suits made up and some good shoes. As for the suits they hang better than anything off the peg to this day and I'll get a couple more years out of them yet (the cut and full canvassing mean that you save money on the price per wear basis as well as being continuously better turned out). Its really win, win, win (especially if you like to support skilled local crafts &c.)
Personally I like wearing the same clothes for years- my shoes probably have seen thousands of miles and get more comfortable with every step (I like having a cobbler too- even if he's only seen two pairs from a rotation of three over a decade:eek:). Similarly shirts just get better until they turn into mufti (I rotate shirts and treat them well so easily get 3+ years until the collars/cuffs fray past the 'would you be happy to meet the Queen in that?' point- fortunately thats when I luv 'em the most!)
I suppose its diffrent strokes/ diffrent folkes, but I really don't get the whole sweatshop/ single use/ el cheapo clothes, nor the crassness of expensive branded clothes with a only slightly longer life. Not a value judgement, but really don't see any worth in doing it this way. /2p
No doubt, I like nice things too and have my selection of vainness in my closet (diamond Gucci watch, LV messenger bag/wallets/etc) but when it comes to clothes, sure I'll spend $100 on a nice collared shirt or nice jeans or something, but $250 is just too far for me personally--shirts DO wear out for me after only a year or two. Sure they look good and still feel fine--until you buy a new one and have a fresh snug one to compare it to--then the old one just feels like junky crap that has lost its form over the last year or two, at least for me. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy/can't stand crappy cheap clothes, all my stuff is upper-end, but there's a personal limit where the value just isn't there for the money on short term clothes--I switch stuff out every couple years as styles/tastes change anyway.
Just for why is that I'm facing a new wardrobe after eleven+ years service from the last (I tend to do things periodically) when I had a half dozen suits made up and some good shoes. As for the suits they hang better than anything off the peg to this day and I'll get a couple more years out of them yet (the cut and full canvassing mean that you save money on the price per wear basis as well as being continuously better turned out). Its really win, win, win (especially if you like to support skilled local crafts &c.)
Personally I like wearing the same clothes for years- my shoes probably have seen thousands of miles and get more comfortable with every step (I like having a cobbler too- even if he's only seen two pairs from a rotation of three over a decade:eek:). Similarly shirts just get better until they turn into mufti (I rotate shirts and treat them well so easily get 3+ years until the collars/cuffs fray past the 'would you be happy to meet the Queen in that?' point- fortunately thats when I luv 'em the most!)
I suppose its diffrent strokes/ diffrent folkes, but I really don't get the whole sweatshop/ single use/ el cheapo clothes, nor the crassness of expensive branded clothes with a only slightly longer life. Not a value judgement, but really don't see any worth in doing it this way. /2p
No doubt, I like nice things too and have my selection of vainness in my closet (diamond Gucci watch, LV messenger bag/wallets/etc) but when it comes to clothes, sure I'll spend $100 on a nice collared shirt or nice jeans or something, but $250 is just too far for me personally--shirts DO wear out for me after only a year or two. Sure they look good and still feel fine--until you buy a new one and have a fresh snug one to compare it to--then the old one just feels like junky crap that has lost its form over the last year or two, at least for me. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy/can't stand crappy cheap clothes, all my stuff is upper-end, but there's a personal limit where the value just isn't there for the money on short term clothes--I switch stuff out every couple years as styles/tastes change anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment