ciTiger
May 4, 02:51 PM
Another stone in the OD's grave...
I would prefer USB sticks...
I would prefer USB sticks...
GekkePrutser
Nov 22, 11:48 AM
i am sure apple is finding the world of phone carriers complex and difficult.
The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.
that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product
I think Apple is already working on moving in on the world of carriers. The O2 Ireland network is so into Apple that their shops are practically Apple stores with a few phones on the side. I'm not saying that this is directly due to the iPhone coming out because it has been like this for years, but it might have helped when this was negotiated.
Networks are always looking for ways to set themselves apart from the others because they basically offer the same (including rates). The iPhone will be associated with the iPod as a fashion item and being a reseller of them will be an excellent opportunity for a network to differentiate itself. Especially when the others won't take it up.
I'd say Apple will have no problem at all getting their phones on the networks' shops.
The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.
that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product
I think Apple is already working on moving in on the world of carriers. The O2 Ireland network is so into Apple that their shops are practically Apple stores with a few phones on the side. I'm not saying that this is directly due to the iPhone coming out because it has been like this for years, but it might have helped when this was negotiated.
Networks are always looking for ways to set themselves apart from the others because they basically offer the same (including rates). The iPhone will be associated with the iPod as a fashion item and being a reseller of them will be an excellent opportunity for a network to differentiate itself. Especially when the others won't take it up.
I'd say Apple will have no problem at all getting their phones on the networks' shops.
eawmp1
Apr 21, 03:06 PM
Hopefully the smaller form factor won't cause additional heat dissipation issues.
dmw007
Nov 26, 11:08 AM
An Apple iTablet would be a cool computer- bring it on Apple! :D :) :cool:
dXTC
Mar 29, 02:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
I suppose we'll have to sync via IV drip? :D However, it would be rather neat to have the nanobots vibrate the eardrums and cilia directly. That would get rid of those annoying headphone cables once and for all.
But we digress...
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
I suppose we'll have to sync via IV drip? :D However, it would be rather neat to have the nanobots vibrate the eardrums and cilia directly. That would get rid of those annoying headphone cables once and for all.
But we digress...
nuckinfutz
May 7, 12:29 PM
Prefrences > mobile me > iDisk ...Set iDisk syncing on and a local cache of your iDisk is created and synced automatically. Just like dropbox.
Dude you are ********ing great. I've only been a member since Feb and this is the first i've heard about it. Thank you kindly.
Dude you are ********ing great. I've only been a member since Feb and this is the first i've heard about it. Thank you kindly.
nastebu
Mar 29, 04:07 PM
Sorry, there is no comparison. US agriculture does not have anywhere near the level of protectionism as Japanese agriculture. Nor does any US industry, with the exception of defense contractors.
And what makes you think a small farmer is somehow superior to DelMonte?
As for who subsidizes agriculture more, I'm unsure, but it's probably close. From the wikipedia article: "A Canadian report claimed that for every dollar U.S. farmers earn, 62 cents comes from some form of government, with total aid in 2009 from all levels of government adding up to $180.8 billion." What's the comparative level in Japan?
The small farmer vs. delMonte is an interesting question. It's a question of values. DelMonte produces cheaper, lower quality food. Small farmers produce more expensive, generally higher quality food. So which you subsidize is a question of social policy.
In Japan, there are lots of small farmers who have kept their farms, and a very strong bias to eat locally. This means that food is of better quality and supports local communities. In the US, massive supermarket chains have tended to dominate food retail, and since they rely on national distribution, food tends to be very processed and have an enormous carbon footprint. It also means lots of mcJobs instead of local businesses.
I prefer the small farmer.
And what makes you think a small farmer is somehow superior to DelMonte?
As for who subsidizes agriculture more, I'm unsure, but it's probably close. From the wikipedia article: "A Canadian report claimed that for every dollar U.S. farmers earn, 62 cents comes from some form of government, with total aid in 2009 from all levels of government adding up to $180.8 billion." What's the comparative level in Japan?
The small farmer vs. delMonte is an interesting question. It's a question of values. DelMonte produces cheaper, lower quality food. Small farmers produce more expensive, generally higher quality food. So which you subsidize is a question of social policy.
In Japan, there are lots of small farmers who have kept their farms, and a very strong bias to eat locally. This means that food is of better quality and supports local communities. In the US, massive supermarket chains have tended to dominate food retail, and since they rely on national distribution, food tends to be very processed and have an enormous carbon footprint. It also means lots of mcJobs instead of local businesses.
I prefer the small farmer.
iJohnHenry
Apr 9, 07:33 PM
It's cut and dry simple math that you are over thinking. Why would you assume (9+3) is a power? 9+3=12 simple as that.
Because there is no operand between the 2 and the (9+3).
And I agree, this is the most nonsensical thread in some time.
God bless diversions. :D
Because there is no operand between the 2 and the (9+3).
And I agree, this is the most nonsensical thread in some time.
God bless diversions. :D
twoodcc
Aug 4, 03:54 PM
Not to be rude, but are you really dumb enough to ask this? Ok, I'll try to make this as simple as possible: if I used a fully 64-bit OS & fully 64-bit software, that is software optimized for 64-bit processors, on a fully 64-bit processor, what would the advantage of using that set-up over using a 32-bit OS & 32-bit software on a 32-bit processor?
yeah i'd say that's rude. maybe i misunderstood you, but you never said this. (or if you did, i missed it).
i do not know the technical stuff, but i do know that if you had all 64-bit stuff, then it'd be a lot better than all 32-bit stuff. (i know i should use better termanology, but oh well)
yeah i'd say that's rude. maybe i misunderstood you, but you never said this. (or if you did, i missed it).
i do not know the technical stuff, but i do know that if you had all 64-bit stuff, then it'd be a lot better than all 32-bit stuff. (i know i should use better termanology, but oh well)
michaelrjohnson
Aug 3, 11:55 AM
"Allegedly"
Or a banner for Paris Expo? Hope not.
They are not setting up for the Paris expo for a long time. There is no chance of this being for Paris, IMO. :)
Or a banner for Paris Expo? Hope not.
They are not setting up for the Paris expo for a long time. There is no chance of this being for Paris, IMO. :)
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
nuckinfutz
May 8, 01:59 PM
This is easy to see
MobilMe Becomes Free
MobilMe gets laden with 1Ads
All part of the Apple strategy
I would be happy to keep paying $99/year for adfree Mobilme
What exact strategy is this? People are confusing what Google, Yahoo or Microsoft would do versus Apple. Consumer are so encumbered with the concept that free means advertising they cannot see any other way. We've used iTunes for free since it's inception with nary an ad that didn't focus on media.
I dun know if MobileMe is going free or not but I doubt Apple has much interest in advertising beyond the App Store.
MobilMe Becomes Free
MobilMe gets laden with 1Ads
All part of the Apple strategy
I would be happy to keep paying $99/year for adfree Mobilme
What exact strategy is this? People are confusing what Google, Yahoo or Microsoft would do versus Apple. Consumer are so encumbered with the concept that free means advertising they cannot see any other way. We've used iTunes for free since it's inception with nary an ad that didn't focus on media.
I dun know if MobileMe is going free or not but I doubt Apple has much interest in advertising beyond the App Store.
ol4ERTH
Mar 27, 07:16 AM
I think a Fall release of iOS5 has the ring of truth.
The iPod music event is becoming a bit of a non event as traditional iPod's become less relevant. So instead Apple will introduce iOS5 which will include one big music feature: cloud streaming and storage of your music!
But if you're going to introduce cloud streaming and sync, then the current iPod touch is not a great device because it has no persistent internet connection, so they're going to introduce an iPod Touch with 3G, which (obviously) won't be called the iPod Touch, but will instead be a cheaper, thinner, lighter iPhone! It might even only have 4GB of storage (probably 8GB) as standard, but the cloud services will make that less of an issue.
The iPhone 5 will still be introduced in the summer with iOS4x and will remain the high end iPhone with NFC, 1080p video recording, 4inch Screen, 8mp still camera, A5 chip, 64GB storage option, maybe they'll introduce Facetime over 3G too at that time too... Same basic physical package as the iPhone 4.
Apple needs to make a cheaper iPhone to compete with Android. For too many people now trading up from feature phones to their first smartphone (at least in the UK) the leap from what they're paying now up to an iPhone is too big. Instead they're getting a low end Android device (e.g. HTC wildfire etc). Apple are not stupid, they know they need to get into that part of the market and soon. It seems like the right time frame. And they need a big event (like their traditional fall music event) to do it.
The iPod music event is becoming a bit of a non event as traditional iPod's become less relevant. So instead Apple will introduce iOS5 which will include one big music feature: cloud streaming and storage of your music!
But if you're going to introduce cloud streaming and sync, then the current iPod touch is not a great device because it has no persistent internet connection, so they're going to introduce an iPod Touch with 3G, which (obviously) won't be called the iPod Touch, but will instead be a cheaper, thinner, lighter iPhone! It might even only have 4GB of storage (probably 8GB) as standard, but the cloud services will make that less of an issue.
The iPhone 5 will still be introduced in the summer with iOS4x and will remain the high end iPhone with NFC, 1080p video recording, 4inch Screen, 8mp still camera, A5 chip, 64GB storage option, maybe they'll introduce Facetime over 3G too at that time too... Same basic physical package as the iPhone 4.
Apple needs to make a cheaper iPhone to compete with Android. For too many people now trading up from feature phones to their first smartphone (at least in the UK) the leap from what they're paying now up to an iPhone is too big. Instead they're getting a low end Android device (e.g. HTC wildfire etc). Apple are not stupid, they know they need to get into that part of the market and soon. It seems like the right time frame. And they need a big event (like their traditional fall music event) to do it.
Evangelion
Sep 11, 09:55 AM
It is excellent that you can play movies it on an iPod, but I hardly think that is enough to launch "screenplay". Most people want to see a movie on a large screen, not a computer or an iPod.
Is there any reason why you couldn't do both?
Is there any reason why you couldn't do both?
AJ Muni
Aug 3, 10:26 PM
MBP Merom anyone? Appleinsider has always been reliable...so this may happen. This WWDC is gonna be great!
kdarling
Apr 20, 09:31 AM
Faster or lower power CPU = hopefully something more cpu hungry in the OS.
Widgets would be nice.
Whatever the new feature is, we already know from history that it probably won't be allowed to run on older models, even if they do get the token OS version upgrade.
Widgets would be nice.
Whatever the new feature is, we already know from history that it probably won't be allowed to run on older models, even if they do get the token OS version upgrade.
navguy
Jan 4, 10:12 AM
There are numerous Youtube videos using the car kit, some that are dash mounted, and it seems to make no difference. I understand its more of a "line of sight" issue so as long as the mount is visible to the sky you're fine. I get mine by Fedex today and I'm mounting it to the dash so I'll let you know how it all works for me.
thanks for the feedback. that would be great.
some of the behavior of the mount that i'm noticing (by using the TomTom car kit free app) is that from a cold start, the mount takes about 20-30 seconds to achieve a satellite fix ... seems longer than the 3GS which makes sense because the mount doesn't have assisted GPS (cellular triangulation help) ...
BUT i'm curious whether the satnav apps are waiting on the mount's fix or taking first availalble? ... i would hope they'd wait on mount since ultimately it should have more precision since it's called 'enhanced' GPS, but how can you tell for sure?
one thing i've tried is to remove the iPhone from the mount after navigating and see if it disrupts the GPS signal w/in the satnav app ... i would expect there to be a switch over to internal GPS and see a small disruption ... but i'm not getting a disrupted signal ... can't be sure one way or the other
thanks for the feedback. that would be great.
some of the behavior of the mount that i'm noticing (by using the TomTom car kit free app) is that from a cold start, the mount takes about 20-30 seconds to achieve a satellite fix ... seems longer than the 3GS which makes sense because the mount doesn't have assisted GPS (cellular triangulation help) ...
BUT i'm curious whether the satnav apps are waiting on the mount's fix or taking first availalble? ... i would hope they'd wait on mount since ultimately it should have more precision since it's called 'enhanced' GPS, but how can you tell for sure?
one thing i've tried is to remove the iPhone from the mount after navigating and see if it disrupts the GPS signal w/in the satnav app ... i would expect there to be a switch over to internal GPS and see a small disruption ... but i'm not getting a disrupted signal ... can't be sure one way or the other
mscriv
May 4, 02:19 PM
another point (more for future considerations), the way a fight is set up now, if 7 people stumble on 1 monster of the lowest possible level (1/1), then even if the battle is easily won by the group (7 AP vs 1 AP), the end result is substantially a tie (monster dead and one hero dead). this doesn't seem right. you should have a situation of "overwhelming strength", where if there is a great disparity in Ap (2-fold, 3-fold?) than the losing party just dies, without inflicting any damage. or something similar
as it is now, the villain is basically guaranteed to kill one or more of the party on round 2, essentially at no cost (depending on how many initial points he had).
And it is completely independent of our actions.
Am I sensing doubt from the "fearless leader" already? I'd suggest you quit your whining and focus on the task at hand. Your decisions have already cost the group a healing treasure.
I understand your role better now. (http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/bumbling-hero-basic-class-for-d20-modern/4321803) ;)
Rolling Papers is out next
as it is now, the villain is basically guaranteed to kill one or more of the party on round 2, essentially at no cost (depending on how many initial points he had).
And it is completely independent of our actions.
Am I sensing doubt from the "fearless leader" already? I'd suggest you quit your whining and focus on the task at hand. Your decisions have already cost the group a healing treasure.
I understand your role better now. (http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/bumbling-hero-basic-class-for-d20-modern/4321803) ;)
Jape
Dec 4, 03:35 PM
Hey guys I just called BLT and they said that they do not have an updated ETA on when they will be receiving a shipment. It almost makes me want to just go to the apple store and pick one up, it is just so hard to give up on 30% off... sigh.
21stcenturykid
Aug 11, 02:16 PM
I wish apple would just hurry up and get the MBP upgraded i need one within the next 4/5 weeks before uni starts!! an with regards to redesign im all for it aslong as they dont put an integrated keyboard in like the MB cos its rubbish!!
so heres hoping for next tuesday!!!:D
so heres hoping for next tuesday!!!:D
DHagan4755
Jul 22, 03:07 PM
Why does everyone want Apple to change the enclosure of the MBP when it's already perfect?
It's time for a new enclosure. The one used right now is from the PowerBook G4 days and goes back to 2003.
More importantly, the MacBook Pro's hinge design limits how far the display can open. Just about every other laptop has a screen that can open 180�. Secondly, while it's not horrible, the MacBook Pro display needs to have a wider viewing angle. It's VERY HARD to replace the MBP's hard drive. I don't want to see a magnetic latch. I would prefer to see something more in-line with the clamshell iBook, which snapped shut.
Those are just a few things.
Apple needs to create a whole new MacBook Pro to deal with heat issues alone. Having that battery inset in the middle must be a nightmare on the logic board designers. And Apple must be paying a fortune to repair the MBP because it's so intricate and hard to get into.
It's time for a new enclosure. The one used right now is from the PowerBook G4 days and goes back to 2003.
More importantly, the MacBook Pro's hinge design limits how far the display can open. Just about every other laptop has a screen that can open 180�. Secondly, while it's not horrible, the MacBook Pro display needs to have a wider viewing angle. It's VERY HARD to replace the MBP's hard drive. I don't want to see a magnetic latch. I would prefer to see something more in-line with the clamshell iBook, which snapped shut.
Those are just a few things.
Apple needs to create a whole new MacBook Pro to deal with heat issues alone. Having that battery inset in the middle must be a nightmare on the logic board designers. And Apple must be paying a fortune to repair the MBP because it's so intricate and hard to get into.
Multimedia
Jul 22, 04:45 PM
i'm still baffled why nobody's answered my question. anyone with a g5 powermac upgrade to an off the shelf video card yet?
i wonder about video card compatibility because i don't see a single driver on nvidia or ati for mac. and the specifications for the 1900 xfx and nvidia 7950 both don't even list mac compatibility. this is really making me think twice about buying from apple.
anyone please help??You have to buy your Mac Video cards from Apple or from ATI which makes some retail models. But none of ATI's retail models are PCIe yet - IE they will not go into Dual Core G5's including the Quad and obviously not in what's next. Can't count on any PC version of anyone's cards working in Macs. Sorry. Sad but true.
I wish someone would tell me I'm wrong on this please. I don't want to be right. :( I want to buy an ATI PCIe Dual DVI card for my Quad, but no such animal exists.
i wonder about video card compatibility because i don't see a single driver on nvidia or ati for mac. and the specifications for the 1900 xfx and nvidia 7950 both don't even list mac compatibility. this is really making me think twice about buying from apple.
anyone please help??You have to buy your Mac Video cards from Apple or from ATI which makes some retail models. But none of ATI's retail models are PCIe yet - IE they will not go into Dual Core G5's including the Quad and obviously not in what's next. Can't count on any PC version of anyone's cards working in Macs. Sorry. Sad but true.
I wish someone would tell me I'm wrong on this please. I don't want to be right. :( I want to buy an ATI PCIe Dual DVI card for my Quad, but no such animal exists.
D3lta
Nov 3, 10:39 AM
lol $120.
Eldiablojoe
May 6, 01:56 PM
I would prefer not to be separated from my beloved wife. I don't really trust some of you who possess less than honorable intentions.