skeep5
Sep 14, 03:05 PM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
maybe they were rubber ninja stars.
maybe they were rubber ninja stars.
steadysignal
Apr 10, 07:04 PM
manual cars are easy to drive - like riding a bike, you never forget it...
yetanotherdave
Nov 25, 07:06 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51O1uMSRhXL._SS500_.jpg
Just got back from seeing him live. Brilliant gig. Bought this DVD at the gig.
Just got back from seeing him live. Brilliant gig. Bought this DVD at the gig.
MacRumors
Apr 2, 06:59 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/02/apple-releases-we-believe-commercial-for-ipad-2/)
justin bieber 2011 haircut
Justin+ieber+new+haircut+
Justin+ieber+new+haircut+
Justin+ieber+2011+haircut
Justin Bieber shocked the
+justin+ieber+2011+march
WATCH Justin Bieber#39;s latest
Justin+ieber+new+hair+do+
ieber new haircut 2011
Justin+ieber+2011+new+
justin bieber 2011 new haircut
justin bieber new haircut 2011
Justin+ieber+new+haircut+
Justin+ieber+new+haircut+
ieber+new+hair+2011+short
Kingsly
Aug 6, 11:40 PM
More pix of the same... in case anyone cares!
1) WWDC2006!!
2) the now infamous banners�
3) me, with the now infamous baners�
4) Nifty computer bags� they are giving out
5) delicious gelato� :p
1) WWDC2006!!
2) the now infamous banners�
3) me, with the now infamous baners�
4) Nifty computer bags� they are giving out
5) delicious gelato� :p
dime21
Apr 20, 09:26 PM
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
lOUDsCREAMEr
Jul 19, 06:41 PM
Here are historical Mac sales by quarter.
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
2Q2000 - 1,043,000
3Q2000 - 1,016,000
4Q2000 - 1,122,000
1Q2001 - 659,000
2Q2001 - 751,000
3Q2001 - 827,000
4Q2001 - 850,000
1Q2002 - 659,000
2Q2002 - 813,000
3Q2002 - 808,000
4Q2002 - 734,000
1Q2003 - 743,000
2Q2003 - 711,000
3Q2003 - 771,000
4Q2003 - 787,000
1Q2004 - 743,000
2Q2004 - 749,000
3Q2004 - 771,000
4Q2004 - 787,000
1Q2005 - 1,046,000
2Q2005 - 1,070,000
3Q2005 - 1,182,000
4Q2005 - 1,236,000
1Q2006- 1,254,000
2Q2006- 1,112,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
what happened exactly in between 2000-Q4 and 2001-Q1?
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
2Q2000 - 1,043,000
3Q2000 - 1,016,000
4Q2000 - 1,122,000
1Q2001 - 659,000
2Q2001 - 751,000
3Q2001 - 827,000
4Q2001 - 850,000
1Q2002 - 659,000
2Q2002 - 813,000
3Q2002 - 808,000
4Q2002 - 734,000
1Q2003 - 743,000
2Q2003 - 711,000
3Q2003 - 771,000
4Q2003 - 787,000
1Q2004 - 743,000
2Q2004 - 749,000
3Q2004 - 771,000
4Q2004 - 787,000
1Q2005 - 1,046,000
2Q2005 - 1,070,000
3Q2005 - 1,182,000
4Q2005 - 1,236,000
1Q2006- 1,254,000
2Q2006- 1,112,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
what happened exactly in between 2000-Q4 and 2001-Q1?
mo-ca
Nov 24, 11:51 AM
Props if anyone knows who used that bag. i do :D
i would say Indidana Jones, but i'm not surenope
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.yup jack bauer from 24 ... got this one too
i would say Indidana Jones, but i'm not surenope
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.yup jack bauer from 24 ... got this one too
Photics
Mar 26, 07:43 AM
But remember that the PS3 was $600 at launch, but is $300 now. Each PS3 game is $60, while Real Racing 2 is $7. So the cost proposition after a few games is not that different.
I don't think the problem here is cost. Lots of people want an iPad, so this is like a fringe benefit. It's more about logistics. I don't think it makes sense to run two screens, and tether an iPad to the TV.
Heh, true, I use my iPhone as a Netflix player. Yet, I don't have to hold the iPhone to do it. I just set it up and enjoy the movie. An iPad is a nice tablet, but not a great controller.
I think a USB controller, going to the iPad 2 - that's connected to a TV - makes more sense. Then, it's like a real gaming console. Another possibility... the iPad 2 camera could be used for motion detection. Then, the gaming can be like the Wii or XBOX 360 Kinect.
My problem here is the cable — HDMI cables are usually short.
This is progress though.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
I'm not bashing the iPad. I think it's cool. It's clearly the leader in the tablet market. Yet, I don't think this is the direction to go for gaming. I think the Apple TV makes more sense.
Apple TV — With a Camera — and that changes things.
FaceTime, Games, Apps on the TV.
But again, the controller is the problem. Apple is not leading here. It should set the standard, not let developers create Frankenstein gaming consoles. This isn't the Pipen. Apple has a strong opportunity to enter the game console space. I don't see a reason to delay.
I don't think the problem here is cost. Lots of people want an iPad, so this is like a fringe benefit. It's more about logistics. I don't think it makes sense to run two screens, and tether an iPad to the TV.
Heh, true, I use my iPhone as a Netflix player. Yet, I don't have to hold the iPhone to do it. I just set it up and enjoy the movie. An iPad is a nice tablet, but not a great controller.
I think a USB controller, going to the iPad 2 - that's connected to a TV - makes more sense. Then, it's like a real gaming console. Another possibility... the iPad 2 camera could be used for motion detection. Then, the gaming can be like the Wii or XBOX 360 Kinect.
My problem here is the cable — HDMI cables are usually short.
This is progress though.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
I'm not bashing the iPad. I think it's cool. It's clearly the leader in the tablet market. Yet, I don't think this is the direction to go for gaming. I think the Apple TV makes more sense.
Apple TV — With a Camera — and that changes things.
FaceTime, Games, Apps on the TV.
But again, the controller is the problem. Apple is not leading here. It should set the standard, not let developers create Frankenstein gaming consoles. This isn't the Pipen. Apple has a strong opportunity to enter the game console space. I don't see a reason to delay.
sochrisash
Jan 12, 09:41 AM
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04084.jpg
Heres my current update on my bug.
Bought some speakers that wouldnt fit the door cards so put them in this suitcase I bought at a vw show. Haha, its great :P
Heres my current update on my bug.
Bought some speakers that wouldnt fit the door cards so put them in this suitcase I bought at a vw show. Haha, its great :P
sjp5317
Mar 23, 09:11 AM
I wonder if they'd give a revamped Classic Airplay capabilities... in addition to being the pocket media player we all know and love make it an addition to your other devices as a bulk mobile storage capable of pushing audio/video out to Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, etc. I'd buy another one then. I mean, I have a terabyte Toshiba drive that i carry in my laptop case, but that requires the USB cable. Who wants to dongle their drive?
dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
OdduWon
Oct 23, 09:44 AM
look there they are... oh no, wait those are irish books professionals
brianus
Sep 1, 02:59 PM
This basically confirms that Apple will release the "Mac".
Uh, no, it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite. Focus on the fact that they're upping the display size to just-below-pro territory and not that they're keeping a laptop processor and you'll see.
Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.
...yes, for many, many years now. It has intentionally not filled the gap. All signs point to it continuing to intentionally not fill the gap.
It all seems pretty obvious.
...that it's what you want, not what Apple will do.
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Exactly. It's not like they can go get a more configurable Mac from another company, either. Plus, remember that Apple had all those overlapping products in the bad old days before you-know-who, Mr. consumer/pro/desktop/notebook grid came back on board.
Uh, no, it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite. Focus on the fact that they're upping the display size to just-below-pro territory and not that they're keeping a laptop processor and you'll see.
Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.
...yes, for many, many years now. It has intentionally not filled the gap. All signs point to it continuing to intentionally not fill the gap.
It all seems pretty obvious.
...that it's what you want, not what Apple will do.
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Exactly. It's not like they can go get a more configurable Mac from another company, either. Plus, remember that Apple had all those overlapping products in the bad old days before you-know-who, Mr. consumer/pro/desktop/notebook grid came back on board.
daveporter
Nov 18, 08:27 PM
Multiple cores are useful for more then improving the processing of multiple threaded applicaitons individually.
Multiple cores are very useful when you run more then one application at a time as long as the operating system is able to allocate core use to more than one application at a time (as OSX does quite nicely). Therefore, with multiple cores, you will get better performance for each application when more then one applicaiton is run at the same time.
When Intel multicore processors are used (as in the Mac Pro) which support hardware virtualization, you can run software (such as Parrallels Desktop) that lets your run additional operating systems (such as Windows, Solaris, and Linux) concurrently with OSX at near full native speeds since one or more cores are used for OSX and one is used for each of the virtual operating systems.
Therefore, multiple cores are still useful even if many of the applications you use are not highly multithreaded.
Dave
Multiple cores are very useful when you run more then one application at a time as long as the operating system is able to allocate core use to more than one application at a time (as OSX does quite nicely). Therefore, with multiple cores, you will get better performance for each application when more then one applicaiton is run at the same time.
When Intel multicore processors are used (as in the Mac Pro) which support hardware virtualization, you can run software (such as Parrallels Desktop) that lets your run additional operating systems (such as Windows, Solaris, and Linux) concurrently with OSX at near full native speeds since one or more cores are used for OSX and one is used for each of the virtual operating systems.
Therefore, multiple cores are still useful even if many of the applications you use are not highly multithreaded.
Dave
RonHC
May 2, 05:04 PM
I got a another newbie question
I am planning on moving out of Windows (7) and onto MAC OS X, but I want to wait for Lion since its close to a finished product. Now my question is, if Lion comes out, would that mean every Mac (Mac Pro, iMac, iMac mini, Macbook, MB Pros, etc) would have Lion installed/packaged or is there a specific mac that will have Lion on its first day and the other macs would have to wait???
I am planning on moving out of Windows (7) and onto MAC OS X, but I want to wait for Lion since its close to a finished product. Now my question is, if Lion comes out, would that mean every Mac (Mac Pro, iMac, iMac mini, Macbook, MB Pros, etc) would have Lion installed/packaged or is there a specific mac that will have Lion on its first day and the other macs would have to wait???
maxinc
Mar 24, 01:07 PM
Good. The new iMacs must be getting pretty close now. Can't wait!!!
kepner
Mar 31, 01:30 AM
Are you able to download System Voices in DP2?
No, unfortunately.
No, unfortunately.
cbnsoul
Apr 19, 11:40 AM
What are these "Macs" you speak of?
Awesome. :)
And please, dear God, let there be new Minis - I've been checking MacRumors multiple times per day lately hoping for any Mini rumors.
Awesome. :)
And please, dear God, let there be new Minis - I've been checking MacRumors multiple times per day lately hoping for any Mini rumors.
ericinboston
Apr 20, 02:38 PM
My Mom's iMac is on its last legs. I think I got it for her in early 2006 and its screen is having some streaking problems. Otherwise it still works, but a lot of the latest Apple software won't load on it. ...
I'd be pretty ticked if my 4+ year old, $1300+ personal computer was a)having screen problems and b)was basically on it's last leg.
Every single Wintel and Mac machines I buy last at least 5 years...a high percentage of them last until 10 but by then they are so old it's almost pointless (such as only having USB 1.1 ports or old screen resolutions or floppy drives or small storage space) even though they run just fine.
You might want to spend $200 and see if it's just a memory and/or general performance problem that you can fix yourself.
I'd be pretty ticked if my 4+ year old, $1300+ personal computer was a)having screen problems and b)was basically on it's last leg.
Every single Wintel and Mac machines I buy last at least 5 years...a high percentage of them last until 10 but by then they are so old it's almost pointless (such as only having USB 1.1 ports or old screen resolutions or floppy drives or small storage space) even though they run just fine.
You might want to spend $200 and see if it's just a memory and/or general performance problem that you can fix yourself.
zwida
Sep 6, 08:42 PM
What planet are you on?
I don't know, but I think I'm going to plan for an early retirement there...:)
I don't know, but I think I'm going to plan for an early retirement there...:)
TheIguana
Jul 18, 02:45 AM
Thing is Steve Jobs is going to pull the usual trick (stupid contracts) and only release this to the American public. Rubbish if you ask me, we live in a world of more than one country. Which is why this sounds like another stupid pipe dream that the rest of the world will never get to enjoy *points at TV shows*.
Iggy :rolleyes:
Iggy :rolleyes:
Cheffy Dave
Jun 24, 01:49 AM
You're that ignorant that you think the only benefit of an open platform is pornography?
read the original post? NO! DO I Think that is the only benefit? NO!
read the original post? NO! DO I Think that is the only benefit? NO!
islanders
Dec 29, 08:21 AM
It looks like it�s going to play YouTube on your TV and be a HDMI/DVI/USB switch board.
A video processor or scaler would be nice.
If it doesn�t have HD there wont be much demand for iTunes download.
I wish they would team up with a high speed satellite internet provider and provide an iDish, but it looks like Apple is thinking small potatoes and thinks it�s going go luck out with another simple iPod device.
It is a good price point and a lot of people will want to watch YouTube on their tv, and a HDMI/DVI switch is about a $100 bucks.
A video processor or scaler would be nice.
If it doesn�t have HD there wont be much demand for iTunes download.
I wish they would team up with a high speed satellite internet provider and provide an iDish, but it looks like Apple is thinking small potatoes and thinks it�s going go luck out with another simple iPod device.
It is a good price point and a lot of people will want to watch YouTube on their tv, and a HDMI/DVI switch is about a $100 bucks.
rmhop81
Sep 6, 12:07 PM
LOL, sucks for that guy!! :p well really depends on the price he paid.....it would really suck for him if the specs were exactly the same as the previous high end model but they aren't. Add an 80gb hard drive and a superdrive and that's another $150 or so.....all he is missing out on is the 1.83ghz processor which isn't that big of a deal.
