MacCoaster
Sep 22, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by wilburpan
Granted www.cpuscorecard.com doesn't really clarify what benchmarks they use, but in their estimation, a dual 1.25GHz Mac beats a 2.4 Ghz P4 by a hair, and is just a little behind a 2.8 GHz P4. Likewise, a 800MHz G4 is very comparable to a 1.8 Ghz P4. The important thing that I see in this ranking is that in perusing the rest of this website, the people who came up with these ratings do not look to be particularly Mac friendly.
Based on this, I would have to disagree with your assertion that "the g4 cannot beat the p4 in performance", unless your only criteria for performance is sheer GHz speed. It seems to me that at the high end, the two chips are at least competitive, and in the middle of the pack, I would say that Macs are a better buy.
I wouldn't say that 800MHz G4 would match 1.8GHz. Notice the 1.25GHz they used is *DUAL* processor 1.25GHz. Maybe *DUAL* 800MHzs.
Granted www.cpuscorecard.com doesn't really clarify what benchmarks they use, but in their estimation, a dual 1.25GHz Mac beats a 2.4 Ghz P4 by a hair, and is just a little behind a 2.8 GHz P4. Likewise, a 800MHz G4 is very comparable to a 1.8 Ghz P4. The important thing that I see in this ranking is that in perusing the rest of this website, the people who came up with these ratings do not look to be particularly Mac friendly.
Based on this, I would have to disagree with your assertion that "the g4 cannot beat the p4 in performance", unless your only criteria for performance is sheer GHz speed. It seems to me that at the high end, the two chips are at least competitive, and in the middle of the pack, I would say that Macs are a better buy.
I wouldn't say that 800MHz G4 would match 1.8GHz. Notice the 1.25GHz they used is *DUAL* processor 1.25GHz. Maybe *DUAL* 800MHzs.
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
carmenodie
Apr 5, 10:42 AM
What I find to damn stupid is that all competitors except Apple use Android or Honeycomb. WTF!
They are comparing ipad to other tablets essentially running the same effing OS.
They are comparing ipad to other tablets essentially running the same effing OS.
scott523
Sep 25, 11:28 AM
Omg with no laptop updates, I'd like to watch as Apple's laptop sales tumble. Already the Apple Store dropped their MacBook shipping days down to 3-5 days (nobody wants it). :mad:
more...
kingdonk
Feb 28, 07:00 PM
more
coder12
Apr 19, 09:55 AM
My post is "coming soon"......IN PURPLE TEXT!!!!;)
After reading this I feel sexually confused :confused:
After reading this I feel sexually confused :confused:
more...
wordoflife
May 2, 01:44 PM
That's some serious QC issues.
Mattlike
Mar 18, 11:38 AM
most places around my area are right about $3.95/gal. for 87 Octane, unless it is BP/Arco which will be a few cents cheaper typically.
more...
iAppTime
Nov 27, 06:22 PM
Why ?
If it were genuine White iPhone 4 parts, Apple most likely wants to investigate where they got leaked.
If it were genuine White iPhone 4 parts, Apple most likely wants to investigate where they got leaked.
cmaier
Mar 26, 01:43 PM
First off Kodak doesn't even have to use its patents necessarily to sue, but clearly they have over the years since they've been making digital cameras and printers for quite some time. If you want to check each an every Kodak product for patent numbers, knock yourself out! :D
If someone says they use the patents, the burden is on them to prove it, not on me to disprove it.
And if they DO use the patents but they do not mark the patent number on them, they can't sue for past damages. If they do NOT use the patents, it shows the patents are not worth much because they are easy to avoid, and hence reasonable royalty damages will be very low, if not $0.
Read the news much lately ?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-25/kodak-wins-round-in-1-billion-patent-case-against-apple-rim.html
The ITC has decided to review that judge's ruling. It's still on.
Yes - all they've decided to do is REVIEW it. They've overturned nothing. And the overturn rates are very low.
If someone says they use the patents, the burden is on them to prove it, not on me to disprove it.
And if they DO use the patents but they do not mark the patent number on them, they can't sue for past damages. If they do NOT use the patents, it shows the patents are not worth much because they are easy to avoid, and hence reasonable royalty damages will be very low, if not $0.
Read the news much lately ?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-25/kodak-wins-round-in-1-billion-patent-case-against-apple-rim.html
The ITC has decided to review that judge's ruling. It's still on.
Yes - all they've decided to do is REVIEW it. They've overturned nothing. And the overturn rates are very low.
more...
jb510
Mar 26, 05:23 PM
#1 there is no front page news here... Sesiously people? It's two guys having coffee and one overheard line someone claims of heard without any real substance or context.
...but to add to the humor aspect going on here... I think Jobs wears the same thing every day to express solidarity with all the Apple users that have to settle for fewer choices and options than PC users.
You want blu-ray? Look I want a shirt I don't pull over my head every morning, but I get by..
You want a replaceable battery in your iPhone? Look I want a different pair of shoes but I get by...
You want USB ports on the iPad? Look I want to wear shorts some time, but I get by...
...but to add to the humor aspect going on here... I think Jobs wears the same thing every day to express solidarity with all the Apple users that have to settle for fewer choices and options than PC users.
You want blu-ray? Look I want a shirt I don't pull over my head every morning, but I get by..
You want a replaceable battery in your iPhone? Look I want a different pair of shoes but I get by...
You want USB ports on the iPad? Look I want to wear shorts some time, but I get by...
foulmouthedleon
Apr 27, 10:54 AM
Backlit keyboard. It wouldn't be so much of a big deal if they didn't have it to begin with, then they removed that option. If they bring it back, I'll get rid of my MBP and go back to an Air.
more...
Full of Win
Apr 1, 09:18 AM
The channels that do not participate are just inching that much more toward obscurity.
Just recently we cancelled the cable subscription (still have KylinTV IPTV) for lack of use. Only one TV show was watched per week, and that can be purchased on iTunes in a superior format to what we got via cable, for a fraction of the cost of cable.
If my provider had an app like this, we would have stayed subscribed. Its arcane to sit down in front of a screen at a predetermined time to watch programming, it really is.
Just recently we cancelled the cable subscription (still have KylinTV IPTV) for lack of use. Only one TV show was watched per week, and that can be purchased on iTunes in a superior format to what we got via cable, for a fraction of the cost of cable.
If my provider had an app like this, we would have stayed subscribed. Its arcane to sit down in front of a screen at a predetermined time to watch programming, it really is.
bella92108
Apr 1, 12:20 PM
Umm, no sorry you're way off here. The DirecTV iPad app was developed by DirecTV. Tivo doesn't power D* boxes, the DirecTivo box is still a little ways off.
You're misunderstanding. It's not a cobranded box that says TiVo, that's coming in the future, but DirecTV outsourced their DVR software development to TiVo years ago....
"It's official! TiVo and DIRECTV have renewed their partnership"
http://www.tivo.com/products/source/satellite/tivo-directv/index.html
They're working on a true Tivo box that'll support directv, whereas in the past it's just been software they've developed as private label for DirecTV... hence the "renewed partnership" wording.
You're misunderstanding. It's not a cobranded box that says TiVo, that's coming in the future, but DirecTV outsourced their DVR software development to TiVo years ago....
"It's official! TiVo and DIRECTV have renewed their partnership"
http://www.tivo.com/products/source/satellite/tivo-directv/index.html
They're working on a true Tivo box that'll support directv, whereas in the past it's just been software they've developed as private label for DirecTV... hence the "renewed partnership" wording.
more...
OllyW
Mar 23, 01:38 PM
I'm fairly certain AirPlay is actually a standard that Apple has licensed from another company which is why there were already a few receivers on the market that supported or could be updated to support AirPlay.
You must confusing it with something else. AirPlay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPlay) is Apple's updated version of AirTunes which has been around for years.
You must confusing it with something else. AirPlay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPlay) is Apple's updated version of AirTunes which has been around for years.
Adam-
Apr 5, 11:26 AM
When you are watching a YouTube video, I tend to forget where the home button is. Or when surfing the web for some time while in the dark.
And I don't literally mean glow in the dark like those cheap Halloween things, I'm talking about an actual light behind the capitative square symbol which has a sensor which turns on when there is a certain level of darkness.
I can easily envisage this happening . It would look fantastic.
Wouldn't that be so annoying in the dark, like the backlight on the keyboard of a MBP when your watching a movie?
And I don't literally mean glow in the dark like those cheap Halloween things, I'm talking about an actual light behind the capitative square symbol which has a sensor which turns on when there is a certain level of darkness.
I can easily envisage this happening . It would look fantastic.
Wouldn't that be so annoying in the dark, like the backlight on the keyboard of a MBP when your watching a movie?
more...
TheNewDude
May 10, 04:09 PM
So i got the Beta Copy of Star Craft but I don't seem to have any playable maps... :S What gives?
LegendKillerUK
Mar 28, 09:26 AM
What do you get for $1,599.00? Free iPad 2, what?
Along with seeing the keynote you get to socialise with devs from all over the world and chat with 1000 apple engineers about any problems you may have and attend seminars on various topics.
Along with seeing the keynote you get to socialise with devs from all over the world and chat with 1000 apple engineers about any problems you may have and attend seminars on various topics.
gugy
Sep 27, 11:29 AM
yeah, bring it on.
10.4.7 is a total crap.
It caused kernel panic in my computer and made it behave totally erratic. I had to uninstall back to 10.4.6
I hope the new upgrade will solve many issues that were created by 10.4.7:mad:
10.4.7 is a total crap.
It caused kernel panic in my computer and made it behave totally erratic. I had to uninstall back to 10.4.6
I hope the new upgrade will solve many issues that were created by 10.4.7:mad:
toddybody
Feb 18, 11:16 AM
Thats so weird...my invitation must have been lost in the mail.
deanooh
Jan 9, 10:37 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not a good move. I travel around the us and for rural (Ennis, TX 2G or none) or too many users , not enough bandwidth areas (south beach, Miami ) this would be a disaster. I'll stick with my navigon. Not to mention overseas when you shut off your DATA access to not get billed $1000 for data usage. MTS
Not a good move. I travel around the us and for rural (Ennis, TX 2G or none) or too many users , not enough bandwidth areas (south beach, Miami ) this would be a disaster. I'll stick with my navigon. Not to mention overseas when you shut off your DATA access to not get billed $1000 for data usage. MTS
davidjearly
Dec 23, 07:29 AM
I actually find it amusing how much time you've spent making a big deal out of nothing here. But whatever puts the wind in your sails.
Again I find myself repeating what I've said already, but that's no more time than you and your man have arguing your point.
Again I find myself repeating what I've said already, but that's no more time than you and your man have arguing your point.
aristotle
Jun 11, 12:48 PM
I don't understand why T-Mobile is using 700/2100 instead of 2100 up and down. The iPhone and other handsets support 2100 but not 700.
ImAlwaysRight
Sep 25, 11:21 AM
It says "MacBook" updates at this event. I hope that wasn't a typo! :eek: :D
It is not a typo, but look at the full statement: There have been rumors of Aperture updates and possibly MacBook updates at this event.
You have neglected two key words, "rumors" and "possibly." Those two words in combination like that shouldn't get your hopes up that much for a MacBook update. :(
It is not a typo, but look at the full statement: There have been rumors of Aperture updates and possibly MacBook updates at this event.
You have neglected two key words, "rumors" and "possibly." Those two words in combination like that shouldn't get your hopes up that much for a MacBook update. :(
