Nightarchaon
May 3, 08:31 AM
Dammit apple , 1Gb video ram should be standard on all but the entry level iMac by now !!!!
lmalave
Oct 19, 08:18 AM
Its clear Apple is missing something in the midrange desk top line. Its time for the Cube or Macintosh or headless iMac or Max Mini or something. iMac isnt for everyone and the world has billions of big beautiful displays just waiting for a midrange Mac but if Apple prices it again the same as the towers it will be another failure. Its way past time for the next Macintosh. Needs a real GPU, at least 1 expansion slot and should be priced right along with ugly iMac:D or a pinch below.
This is not beyond the realm of possibility. I could see Apple modifying the Mac mini at some point to make the graphics card more accessible and upgradeable. But of course it would be a laptop graphics card and not a full desktop graphics card. Do ATI / nVidia sell something like mini-PCI graphics cards to consumers?
But anyway, althought it's a possibility I think it's a slim one, since gamers are just not Apple's focus right now...
This is not beyond the realm of possibility. I could see Apple modifying the Mac mini at some point to make the graphics card more accessible and upgradeable. But of course it would be a laptop graphics card and not a full desktop graphics card. Do ATI / nVidia sell something like mini-PCI graphics cards to consumers?
But anyway, althought it's a possibility I think it's a slim one, since gamers are just not Apple's focus right now...
nick004
Oct 24, 08:12 AM
Whats the shipping times?
Eduardo1971
Apr 13, 10:28 PM
Tons of iPhone 4's being sold right now on both Att and Verizon... See it everyday
Yup. Last week I was one of those at the Apple store buying the iPhone 4. I was hoping to hold off until v5.0 came out but my v3.0 iPhone decided that the time was now. In the 30 minutes that I was buying/activating the phone six other people were doing the same thing.
Yup. Last week I was one of those at the Apple store buying the iPhone 4. I was hoping to hold off until v5.0 came out but my v3.0 iPhone decided that the time was now. In the 30 minutes that I was buying/activating the phone six other people were doing the same thing.
more...
wmmk
Jul 12, 11:08 PM
why don't we get back on the topic of pages 3 before the thread is closed?
sound good fellas? you said you'd drop the argument.
sound good fellas? you said you'd drop the argument.
Blorzoga
May 4, 05:21 AM
pfft, this should not be front page news, hell not even second page... just a bunch of hearsay from a CR that knows nothing about it and speculates BS.
Yeah, customer service reps are always soooo reliable.
Yeah, customer service reps are always soooo reliable.
more...
obeygiant
May 1, 10:07 PM
Good weekend for Obama. He got even with both Donald Trump and Osama bin Laden.
http://i55.tinypic.com/20tfo2b.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/20tfo2b.jpg
Intell
Apr 29, 07:51 PM
Can we vote Appleguy out of the afterlife if he starts annoying me?
Yes...
Yes...
more...
CDCC
Apr 22, 10:53 PM
Apples got to be thrilled, they got just what they wanted. A good dose of conflict and confrontation.
I truly believe Steve is addicted to chaos.
Gee, is that why their stock goes up 10 points at the end of every quarter?
I'll take the dose of conflict and confrontation with my Apple stock.
And how is your Samsung and MS stock doing?
Enough said!
I truly believe Steve is addicted to chaos.
Gee, is that why their stock goes up 10 points at the end of every quarter?
I'll take the dose of conflict and confrontation with my Apple stock.
And how is your Samsung and MS stock doing?
Enough said!
rasmasyean
May 1, 10:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that he was still alive.
Apparently he had long term kidney disease... I thought he would have died in a cave years ago and no-one had found his body (we haven't seen him in the media for years).
Props to the US forces.
It's certainly good news... but might not mean very much. Al Qaeda was always more of a movement or 'franchise' than a hierarchical organisation with command and control.
I still think he died a long time ago (like 10 years) and the CIA hid his body to deny martydom and ease the occuapation of Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, how "convienient" that they "have his body" now.
Like you indicate, it doesn't mean much now, martydom or not. But if I was the CIA, hmmm...maybe it's time to shift focus to Iran in some way rather than "hunt al queda". This has also got to be good news for arms dealers.
Apparently he had long term kidney disease... I thought he would have died in a cave years ago and no-one had found his body (we haven't seen him in the media for years).
Props to the US forces.
It's certainly good news... but might not mean very much. Al Qaeda was always more of a movement or 'franchise' than a hierarchical organisation with command and control.
I still think he died a long time ago (like 10 years) and the CIA hid his body to deny martydom and ease the occuapation of Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, how "convienient" that they "have his body" now.
Like you indicate, it doesn't mean much now, martydom or not. But if I was the CIA, hmmm...maybe it's time to shift focus to Iran in some way rather than "hunt al queda". This has also got to be good news for arms dealers.
more...
wovel
Apr 28, 12:31 PM
No. No. No.
Comparing Android vs. iOS : fine
But why the arbitrary distinction of "phones". It's an OS that can be run on multiple devices. Do you compare Mac laptop share vs. Windows laptop share? (In any meaningful context, that is)?
Actually it is not fine. There are still Android devices sold that will never run 2.0+
What percentage of those Android phones are compatible with each other?
The market share data needs to be looked at in a more nuanced way than "Apple Wins!" or "Android Wins!".
The iPhone's market share *right now* is okay - enviable even - because, when combined with the interests of people who are buying iPhones *right now*, it means that developers have more incentive to make apps for iPhones than for Android...and the better app availability for iPhones makes the platform even better. (And to some extent the Touch and the iPad play a role here)
The *trend* of the iPhone's market share is more concerning, though, and anyone interested in the future of the iPhone should pay attention to these numbers. (I'm sure Apple is). If the iPhone's marketshare drops too far, or stays too low for too long, there is a risk that developers may shift their resources to developing for Android first. Which will further undercut the iPhone's advantages.
But these trends are certainly not fixed in stone...I know a lot of people (non-techies) who recently bought a 3GS...$49 for that phone is a steal. But $49 for the iP4 when the iP5 comes out will be even more of a steal...and, presumably, the old iP4 will be available on both AT&T and Verizon. And as more Verizon users come off of their contracts, there may be some additional iP uptake.
I really see no reason why - with $49 phones available from both Verizon and AT&T, the iPhone market share shouldn't go up to 50% or beyond.
The trend is iPhone Marketshare went up and Android went down...
Comparing Android vs. iOS : fine
But why the arbitrary distinction of "phones". It's an OS that can be run on multiple devices. Do you compare Mac laptop share vs. Windows laptop share? (In any meaningful context, that is)?
Actually it is not fine. There are still Android devices sold that will never run 2.0+
What percentage of those Android phones are compatible with each other?
The market share data needs to be looked at in a more nuanced way than "Apple Wins!" or "Android Wins!".
The iPhone's market share *right now* is okay - enviable even - because, when combined with the interests of people who are buying iPhones *right now*, it means that developers have more incentive to make apps for iPhones than for Android...and the better app availability for iPhones makes the platform even better. (And to some extent the Touch and the iPad play a role here)
The *trend* of the iPhone's market share is more concerning, though, and anyone interested in the future of the iPhone should pay attention to these numbers. (I'm sure Apple is). If the iPhone's marketshare drops too far, or stays too low for too long, there is a risk that developers may shift their resources to developing for Android first. Which will further undercut the iPhone's advantages.
But these trends are certainly not fixed in stone...I know a lot of people (non-techies) who recently bought a 3GS...$49 for that phone is a steal. But $49 for the iP4 when the iP5 comes out will be even more of a steal...and, presumably, the old iP4 will be available on both AT&T and Verizon. And as more Verizon users come off of their contracts, there may be some additional iP uptake.
I really see no reason why - with $49 phones available from both Verizon and AT&T, the iPhone market share shouldn't go up to 50% or beyond.
The trend is iPhone Marketshare went up and Android went down...
SingaporeStu
Jan 31, 10:32 PM
His character on "Two & A Half Men" is based loosely on his life. He's been this way for the longest time. He's been through enough rehab to know what the alternatives are (the "healthy" lifestyle), and he obviously doesn't want that. He enjoys living as he does, so who can begrudge him that?
I'd rather have a short, enjoyable and colourful life than a long, boring one. Cheers to Charlie, I say. Damn that guys pulls some nice chicks��
I'd rather have a short, enjoyable and colourful life than a long, boring one. Cheers to Charlie, I say. Damn that guys pulls some nice chicks��
more...
applefanDrew
Apr 12, 09:26 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)
I believe this b/c Darlymple and Gruber belies this.
I believe this b/c Darlymple and Gruber belies this.
Krafty
Feb 1, 05:48 AM
http://lulzimg.com/i11/c3a4da.jpg
more...
iPhone1
Sep 12, 11:56 PM
Just got this in the mail. Cool little 4GB flash drive from Photojojo. Here's the link. (http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/camera-usb/)
Rooskibar03
Sep 30, 04:10 PM
Dropped calls is a feature of the iphone... enjoy ;)
I think thats under the "Easter Egg" section of features.
I think thats under the "Easter Egg" section of features.
more...
Eidorian
Nov 3, 10:30 AM
There is a PPC version but it will only run the PPC version of Windows.NT 3.51? 4? LOL
All these VMWare features are really nice. Then again I bought Parallels for $29 + tax after rebate. Give me more features Parallels! :D
All these VMWare features are really nice. Then again I bought Parallels for $29 + tax after rebate. Give me more features Parallels! :D
kingtj
Jun 24, 03:18 PM
I'm honestly not too surprised. On one hand, Apple keeps pushing the iPod Touch as a great little portable gaming system (so kids are getting them left and right), yet on the other, they make it a big pain to prevent a kid from purchasing unwanted software on it.
I know first-hand, because my g/f used to work for Apple, and got refurbished iPod Touches for both of her young kids, after they were constantly borrowing her iPhone. My own daughter got a refurbished Touch last Xmas as well.
I thought I'd be slick and create a whole new iTunes account for my kid that wasn't linked to any credit/debit card at all. That way, she can only purchase FREE apps unless I pre-load her account with some money from a gift-card first. (My g/f didn't do this, and her 3 year old started buying herself quite a few games one day! Until then, she just assumed said 3 year old wouldn't even be capable of navigating the App Store on her own and doing it!)
But then I realized all the little games we bought and put on my iPhone a long time ago were not going to be transferable to her iPod Touch without re-purchasing them. No way I was going to re-buy them, and she was getting all upset she had stuff on my phone that wasn't on her Touch. So I wound up redoing her Touch so it shared MY iTunes account. Not happy about that though, and sure enough, despite my warnings, she bought about $10 in software one time!
Apple really needs to re-think the way this stuff works. I'd be all for something like Android's store apparently does where you can request a refund for anything you download within the first 24 hours.... but frankly, some people will still abuse that too. (They'll start using it as a "free rental" service, grabbing things for a day and then requesting refunds.) So maybe a setup where you can refund apps up to 24 hours later up to the first X number of times, and then the account reverts to only giving refunds within the first hour or 30 minutes?
haha, this makes it onto MR?
My little cousin purchased $2,820.75 from the app store on an iPod Touch. And Apple wasn't going to refund any of it until a transcript from an internal chat was somehow included in a email to my Aunt that consisted of very rude talk behind her back.
I have the emails, but my aunt and uncle aren't finished with the fiasco with Apple's legal team, so I can't show them.
I know first-hand, because my g/f used to work for Apple, and got refurbished iPod Touches for both of her young kids, after they were constantly borrowing her iPhone. My own daughter got a refurbished Touch last Xmas as well.
I thought I'd be slick and create a whole new iTunes account for my kid that wasn't linked to any credit/debit card at all. That way, she can only purchase FREE apps unless I pre-load her account with some money from a gift-card first. (My g/f didn't do this, and her 3 year old started buying herself quite a few games one day! Until then, she just assumed said 3 year old wouldn't even be capable of navigating the App Store on her own and doing it!)
But then I realized all the little games we bought and put on my iPhone a long time ago were not going to be transferable to her iPod Touch without re-purchasing them. No way I was going to re-buy them, and she was getting all upset she had stuff on my phone that wasn't on her Touch. So I wound up redoing her Touch so it shared MY iTunes account. Not happy about that though, and sure enough, despite my warnings, she bought about $10 in software one time!
Apple really needs to re-think the way this stuff works. I'd be all for something like Android's store apparently does where you can request a refund for anything you download within the first 24 hours.... but frankly, some people will still abuse that too. (They'll start using it as a "free rental" service, grabbing things for a day and then requesting refunds.) So maybe a setup where you can refund apps up to 24 hours later up to the first X number of times, and then the account reverts to only giving refunds within the first hour or 30 minutes?
haha, this makes it onto MR?
My little cousin purchased $2,820.75 from the app store on an iPod Touch. And Apple wasn't going to refund any of it until a transcript from an internal chat was somehow included in a email to my Aunt that consisted of very rude talk behind her back.
I have the emails, but my aunt and uncle aren't finished with the fiasco with Apple's legal team, so I can't show them.
Xian Zhu Xuande
Nov 10, 06:14 PM
So sincere curiosity here: I've read the reviews and it seems like this browser can't do all the Flash-related stuff a personal would normally want to do, ranging from some popular video sites like Hulu to Flash games. I'm not missing Flash on my iPhone or iPad one bit, but I'm also a little curious at this browser's success. Is it mostly people downloading something because they feel like they're getting a thing they were told they couldn't get? Or does this product actually offer something excellent?
Tastic Bycrom
Mar 31, 10:43 AM
The torn pages and stoplights against the leather are jarring.
I like the internal changes. I just hope they do something a little less silly with the toolbar.
I like the internal changes. I just hope they do something a little less silly with the toolbar.
Teddy's
Aug 15, 01:31 PM
Still... meh.
oh... come on! :mad:
oh... come on! :mad:
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
dXTC
Feb 25, 10:26 PM
They show will be on as long as the ratings are up. Maybe Sheen gets killed off when he crashes his car next season and then their long lost brother enters.
Now that I think about it, there's only one way this might work: if the producers can get Emilio Estevez. :D
Now that I think about it, there's only one way this might work: if the producers can get Emilio Estevez. :D
cbronfman
Apr 22, 06:09 PM
Yup, I was one of the haters when the iPhone 4 leaked. I still prefer the physical design of my 3GS. The rounded edged are perfect holding the phone feels like shaking someone's hand. The iPhone 4 doesn't feel as nice to hold, even if it does have nicer aesthetics.
I would kill for a return to the old design, but eliminate the chrome rim on the front and have the back case curl all the way up to the black face. Then made the back from a new material that doesn't crack as easily as the old plastic. Maybe a molded carbon fiber design? That would be sexy as hell. An iPhone 4 style dark grey carbon back casing flush with the now iconic black face, no shiny chrome ********.
+1 so long as it also has the A5 processor and HSPA+. I like this proposed redesign but then I have small hands and I've never liked the rectangular sharp edges of the iP4 or the glass back. I love my iPad2.
I would kill for a return to the old design, but eliminate the chrome rim on the front and have the back case curl all the way up to the black face. Then made the back from a new material that doesn't crack as easily as the old plastic. Maybe a molded carbon fiber design? That would be sexy as hell. An iPhone 4 style dark grey carbon back casing flush with the now iconic black face, no shiny chrome ********.
+1 so long as it also has the A5 processor and HSPA+. I like this proposed redesign but then I have small hands and I've never liked the rectangular sharp edges of the iP4 or the glass back. I love my iPad2.
Нема коментара:
Постави коментар