someone28624
Mar 22, 04:18 PM
Not that I'd want this, BUT why doesn't Apple make the iPod Classic a multi-touch device? The Mac proves that you don't need to have flash memory in order for multi-touch to work. Is the HDD in the Classic too slow or unresponsive to work with iOS? The could call it the iPod Touch Classic or something. Then you could have the best of both worlds, large capacity and a touch screen. If they did that, though, there's no way I'd buy an iPod Touch (not that I have a desire for one as I've go the iPhone4).
Because multitouch sucks if you're trying to control your music while falling asleep in a dark room with the player under the covers, while driving, while running, or while dusting.
Because multitouch sucks if you're trying to control your music while falling asleep in a dark room with the player under the covers, while driving, while running, or while dusting.
brepublican
Aug 7, 07:55 AM
I think he means more like XP SP2 / Vista.
Well all those measure are bogus. OS X is far more secure than you can get from that Windows crap.
Thats why Leopard is Vista Reloaded, ver 2.0
:)
Well all those measure are bogus. OS X is far more secure than you can get from that Windows crap.
Thats why Leopard is Vista Reloaded, ver 2.0
:)
SciFrog
Feb 10, 07:03 PM
You need to update to the 6.29 client.
Bigadv are still more ppd but on win side many people are switching to SMP2 because the a3 core is quite fast on 4 cores (8 virtual).
Soon bigadv units are switching to a3 core also. I would then hope that we will not be loosing units due to restart or power loss or network switching as the a3 core is now threaded.
Bigadv are still more ppd but on win side many people are switching to SMP2 because the a3 core is quite fast on 4 cores (8 virtual).
Soon bigadv units are switching to a3 core also. I would then hope that we will not be loosing units due to restart or power loss or network switching as the a3 core is now threaded.
Eraserhead
Mar 19, 05:07 AM
Its always a tough call, if you don't go in you risk something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Where over half a million people are killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Where over half a million people are killed.
stcanard
Nov 29, 12:08 PM
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
As far as what's wrong with the wifi as currently done, here:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/zune.ars/4
Actually that entire review is pretty good at covering why the current Zune is really not worth it, and why it has potential.
My personal opinion is that they will never hit that potential -- Microsoft in the post Gates incarnation has shown a complete inability to focus, and to "get" the current trends. Realistically all their big successes were pre-Ballmer, and even the XBOX owes more to Halo than it does to any brilliant positioning on the part of MS.
But as far as all out Microsoft bashing, what would one expect on a forum dedicated to Apple?
As far as what's wrong with the wifi as currently done, here:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/zune.ars/4
Actually that entire review is pretty good at covering why the current Zune is really not worth it, and why it has potential.
My personal opinion is that they will never hit that potential -- Microsoft in the post Gates incarnation has shown a complete inability to focus, and to "get" the current trends. Realistically all their big successes were pre-Ballmer, and even the XBOX owes more to Halo than it does to any brilliant positioning on the part of MS.
But as far as all out Microsoft bashing, what would one expect on a forum dedicated to Apple?
iSamurai
Mar 22, 08:23 PM
They should make brief questions to Steve Jobs the same way he answers:
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my iPhone
:D
You reckon he actually responds to fan mails on his iPhone? :D
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my iPhone
:D
You reckon he actually responds to fan mails on his iPhone? :D
kiljoy616
Mar 26, 01:53 AM
The iPad is (sort of) good for playing two minute time wasters....as a "real" gaming machine, it's pretty sub-par. Crappy specs, no controller of any sort (sorry, but touch screen input is horrible in almost all cases). The ability to hook it up to my TV, when I already have a dedicated, much more powerful machine, with a much greater selection of games, a greater selection of more complex, games, is underwhelming, to say the least.
One day, maybe. But for right now, color me unimpressed.
Ah but your missing the point this is for casual gamers. No one is taking this platform as a serious contender to PS3 or xbox 360 but I can see a lot of people doing lots of casual gaming even this one to pass the time. Also can you take your top system in the back seat no you can't. And a laptop is dumb. but for 500 dollars you have all the things the ipad does well and then this.
Apple has a winner and its stock :D is going to go even more up. :D
One day, maybe. But for right now, color me unimpressed.
Ah but your missing the point this is for casual gamers. No one is taking this platform as a serious contender to PS3 or xbox 360 but I can see a lot of people doing lots of casual gaming even this one to pass the time. Also can you take your top system in the back seat no you can't. And a laptop is dumb. but for 500 dollars you have all the things the ipad does well and then this.
Apple has a winner and its stock :D is going to go even more up. :D
franswa za
May 3, 04:45 AM
i bought my first ever ipad last week............
today while working on my macbook i touched its screen to flick through pictures...... amazing how easily we transform?
today while working on my macbook i touched its screen to flick through pictures...... amazing how easily we transform?
BriChi
Oct 23, 08:43 AM
Of course tomorrow, I just purchased the white Macbook 2.0 Tuesday. If they come out tomorrow looks like I am returning mine for the new c2d. I will pay the restocking fee if I have to
Indiana Mac
Mar 20, 10:23 PM
First is advertising. Sure Apple's commericals are cute and award winning. But for once can we show some hard hitting ads that are shown more than just occasionally? Apple needs to advertise, and more than just the chic oh, that was nice. What I want to see is ads showing how much easier it is to use a mac than a pc, or how less venerable macs are to virus and hacking, then show the things for goodness sakes!!
Second is quality control.
Considering the recent problems with the ibook's logic board (over a years worth of laptops sold before admitting a problem?), problems with the 15in powerbook (wait almost a year for memory problems and white spots?) problems with the 12in powerbook(warping cases), and the old windtunnels, I'd say that Apple's quality control is slipping. Are they crap, no, but for the premium that we all pay they deserve to be better.
I do not mind a 500 dollar computer dying on me, but a 1700 laptop less than a year old? Yes I most certainly do. Having to pay $300 dollars to cover it? yes i do. Knowing a guy who sent in a 15in Albook three times for the screen? yes I do. A friend who owns a 12in whose case is warping, yes i do.
Price is not as much of an issue. Many of the people who buy 500 dollar computers would not take the time to learn about why a mac is better, they are too dollar concious(the Wal-Mart mentality, if its cheaper its better.)
Do I think Apple is dying, no. But we have an opportunity to regain market share if apple plays hardball.
Second is quality control.
Considering the recent problems with the ibook's logic board (over a years worth of laptops sold before admitting a problem?), problems with the 15in powerbook (wait almost a year for memory problems and white spots?) problems with the 12in powerbook(warping cases), and the old windtunnels, I'd say that Apple's quality control is slipping. Are they crap, no, but for the premium that we all pay they deserve to be better.
I do not mind a 500 dollar computer dying on me, but a 1700 laptop less than a year old? Yes I most certainly do. Having to pay $300 dollars to cover it? yes i do. Knowing a guy who sent in a 15in Albook three times for the screen? yes I do. A friend who owns a 12in whose case is warping, yes i do.
Price is not as much of an issue. Many of the people who buy 500 dollar computers would not take the time to learn about why a mac is better, they are too dollar concious(the Wal-Mart mentality, if its cheaper its better.)
Do I think Apple is dying, no. But we have an opportunity to regain market share if apple plays hardball.
Nwanda
Sep 19, 09:12 PM
Antenna gate was blown out of proportion :rolleyes:
It really was a non issue.
However I do enjoy my free case :)
I concur. I would have bought and used the phone even without the case. Now, it's just a bonus!
It really was a non issue.
However I do enjoy my free case :)
I concur. I would have bought and used the phone even without the case. Now, it's just a bonus!
Kaibelf
Apr 21, 11:41 AM
What about Apple? Why don't they go after them for tracking every little thing you do with their services. If you want to talk about a company that violates & then documents our privacy go after Apple.
Don't be a fool.
You sign up for that when you agree to their TOS and buy their products. I don't recall a single person signing off on having their wi-fi sniffed and recorded by Google's mapping cars. :eek:
Don't be a fool.
You sign up for that when you agree to their TOS and buy their products. I don't recall a single person signing off on having their wi-fi sniffed and recorded by Google's mapping cars. :eek:
Bradley W
Aug 6, 08:41 PM
_
javabear90
Mar 18, 10:20 PM
hmmm...... this is a head scratcher....
Built
Apr 3, 05:55 AM
Ah, the fine sound of someone clutching at straws...
You'd do better to revise your opinion with a little more research and analysis, rather than keep digging yourself into ever more ridiculous holes in an argument you don't even realise you have lost.
Another Apple apologist surfaces! Instead of holding Apple responsible for providing a defect-free product, you make excuses for them and ridicule those for whom such major issues as light bleed and other quality control issues are unacceptable in a relatively costly piece of consumer electronics.
You are all quite entertaining in your defense of Apple...especially Matassas or whatever his name his trying to pass the light bleed issue as minor and isolated, despite the fact that it is being reported all over the Internet. The only real trolls here are you and your fellow Apple apologists.
You'd do better to revise your opinion with a little more research and analysis, rather than keep digging yourself into ever more ridiculous holes in an argument you don't even realise you have lost.
Another Apple apologist surfaces! Instead of holding Apple responsible for providing a defect-free product, you make excuses for them and ridicule those for whom such major issues as light bleed and other quality control issues are unacceptable in a relatively costly piece of consumer electronics.
You are all quite entertaining in your defense of Apple...especially Matassas or whatever his name his trying to pass the light bleed issue as minor and isolated, despite the fact that it is being reported all over the Internet. The only real trolls here are you and your fellow Apple apologists.
CIA
Apr 12, 08:16 PM
Appleinsider jumped the gun a few hours ago and posted a nice article about the "new" final cut 7. Complete with info on the FCS that has been out for 2 years.... lol
JUSTIN BIEBER AND MILEY CYRUS
Justin Bieber promised he
justin bieber with selena
bketchum
Jul 18, 06:55 PM
Why do some people think Steve Jobs doesn't want a movie rental model? Traditionally, music is sold, not rented. Traditionally, movies are rented, not sold. I see jobs pushing this for iTunes. I'm guessing Apple will offer both rental and sales of movies, just like Blockbuster does, but they'll push the rental model, because:
- People don't watch movies over and over like they do songs
- Movies take up a lot of disk space
- People don't want to spend money buying back up drives
- People don't want to spend time burning DVDs
- Renting is cheaper than buying
- People don't watch movies over and over like they do songs
- Movies take up a lot of disk space
- People don't want to spend money buying back up drives
- People don't want to spend time burning DVDs
- Renting is cheaper than buying
reel2reel
Apr 12, 10:01 PM
Jeez, I can't even get photography bay to load anymore and Rob Imbs' photos are getting 700 views in a matter of minutes. :eek:
EagerDragon
Nov 28, 11:42 AM
Creating a low end monitor would be a very, very wise decision on Apple's part. Buyers of Mac Minis would appreciate having a less expensive Apple monitor to go with their stuff.
I disagree, take the price of a mini, add a good 17" monitor (4:3 (but not a super cheap one)) then compare the price to the 17" iMac. Not much difference and the iMac has better everything.
I disagree, take the price of a mini, add a good 17" monitor (4:3 (but not a super cheap one)) then compare the price to the 17" iMac. Not much difference and the iMac has better everything.
iJohnHenry
Apr 10, 06:49 PM
Coupes are just awkward.
Coupes are for anti-social people. IMNSHO.
And two-seaters?? :eek: Well, let's not go there.
Coupes are for anti-social people. IMNSHO.
And two-seaters?? :eek: Well, let's not go there.
sporadicMotion
Jan 11, 10:15 PM
My VW is away for the winter :)
A new pic for '11
http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz19/sporadicMotion/DSCN0447-1.jpg
A new pic for '11
http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz19/sporadicMotion/DSCN0447-1.jpg
leekohler
Mar 24, 12:30 PM
Other Animal species have bisexual relationships so it must be natural.
Other Animal species also are involved in cannibalism and random out breaks against their own kind, so in our species we shouldn't prohibit murder either, its natural.
Umm..what? All of those things you just mentioned involve victimization of others. If two consenting adults want to be together, there is no harm done to them or you. There's nothing wrong or harmful about gay people. You're being utterly ridiculous.
BTW- you're talking to one. So I appreciate that you use fair comparisons, and stop comparing me and others like me to cannibals and murderers.
Other Animal species also are involved in cannibalism and random out breaks against their own kind, so in our species we shouldn't prohibit murder either, its natural.
Umm..what? All of those things you just mentioned involve victimization of others. If two consenting adults want to be together, there is no harm done to them or you. There's nothing wrong or harmful about gay people. You're being utterly ridiculous.
BTW- you're talking to one. So I appreciate that you use fair comparisons, and stop comparing me and others like me to cannibals and murderers.
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
finchna
Aug 24, 09:53 PM
any ideas for specs?
No comments:
Post a Comment