Fresh1
Apr 13, 07:48 PM
LOL. White iPhone 4 will be the duke nukem forever of iPhones.
I lol'd :D.
It's funny (and sad), but dead right haha.
I lol'd :D.
It's funny (and sad), but dead right haha.
maclaptop
May 5, 04:54 AM
are you sure?
Not gonna happen
Not gonna happen
neutrino23
Dec 1, 03:32 PM
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
Hmm. I'm running a 17" MacBook Pro with 10.4.8 and when I checked under both Ethernet and Airport Appletalk was not enabled. On this machine I have never set it one way or the other.
Hmm. I'm running a 17" MacBook Pro with 10.4.8 and when I checked under both Ethernet and Airport Appletalk was not enabled. On this machine I have never set it one way or the other.
trip1ex
Apr 13, 02:32 PM
Eh I don't see it. I think it's a jump the shark move.
What are they going to do?
Make an aluminum frame?
INclude a tiny aluminum remote with few buttons?
Build the ATV inside?
Let you calibrate it and configure it from the computer?
Video conferencing?
Put nice speakers inside?
Give it a much higher resolution that doubles as a nice computer monitor?
I don't see this stuff as having a big market.
Or maybe they make your tv the computer also? BAsically an iMac. Maybe they release a 42" iMac for $3000.
Still sounds like jump the shark to me.
What are they going to do?
Make an aluminum frame?
INclude a tiny aluminum remote with few buttons?
Build the ATV inside?
Let you calibrate it and configure it from the computer?
Video conferencing?
Put nice speakers inside?
Give it a much higher resolution that doubles as a nice computer monitor?
I don't see this stuff as having a big market.
Or maybe they make your tv the computer also? BAsically an iMac. Maybe they release a 42" iMac for $3000.
Still sounds like jump the shark to me.
lmalave
Oct 24, 07:53 AM
anything for macbooks? please?
What I'd like is the base MacBook to drop to $999 and the base mini to drop to $499. That's what the G4 versions cost before they were replaced by the Intel versions.
What I'd like is the base MacBook to drop to $999 and the base mini to drop to $499. That's what the G4 versions cost before they were replaced by the Intel versions.
CorvusCamenarum
Apr 24, 08:22 PM
Non violent people don't tend to use assault to solve their problems.
You mean as the perpetrators did, right? Just checking.
You mean as the perpetrators did, right? Just checking.
JangoFett124
May 3, 08:52 AM
Did the low-end, $1199 model disappear from the store page?
alexguy96
Jan 30, 08:21 PM
Finally got this bad boy
http://reviewfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Black-Ops-Cover.jpg
via Amazon for 44 bucks!
http://reviewfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Black-Ops-Cover.jpg
via Amazon for 44 bucks!
mc68k
Oct 6, 06:42 PM
yeah not worth it. on a 8 core 3GHz each step takes ~45 mins
45*100=4500
/60=75
/24=3.13 days
preferred is 4 days and a final deadline of 6. even if u ran a 4 core 24/7 i don't think it would complete it
45*100=4500
/60=75
/24=3.13 days
preferred is 4 days and a final deadline of 6. even if u ran a 4 core 24/7 i don't think it would complete it
Mac Marc
Apr 25, 12:37 PM
How do you explain the MacBook Pros with the antiglare screens?
Never going to have a matte screen lol
Never going to have a matte screen lol
crees!
Dec 1, 03:41 PM
It has been brought to attention that Apple is encrypting certain parts of the OS kernel. Does this have any bearing in this discussion or it is only to make piracy of the OS more difficult?
1984world
Nov 12, 07:54 PM
I would like to know why as well.
It's available in the Canadian Store.
It's available in the Canadian Store.
ngenerator
Apr 14, 09:05 AM
So guys, I'm already queuing up for my ix.Mac.MarketingName. I think I'm the first! Tent and camping gear ready.
iJustin, is that you?
iJustin, is that you?
appleguy123
May 1, 07:48 PM
Why didn't any of you vote? Unless I'm mistaken, ucfgrad is going to be lynched by a vote of one when the narrative is posted. :(
mc68k
Dec 2, 12:36 PM
i'm already over it, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter too much. if i were to be credited all the stuff over the years i should have been im sure id have 100s of thousands more points :(
Westside guy
Jul 10, 12:17 PM
Ha ha... when I glanced at the RSS feed I thought it said "Page 3 Features?". I thought: "Why the heck would MacRumors add a 'Page 3'? Much of the 'Page 1' stuff never comes to pass, and they've got 'Page 2' for the even less substantiated stuff..."
:p
:p
FloatingBones
Nov 19, 10:50 AM
Hopefully, the websites that provide their videos through a legacy Flash wrapper will soon be providing their users with a choice.
I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.
It would be better if Apple provided its users with a choice of whether they want to enable a flash plugin or not in their devices instead of screwing us all over by making so many web sites unusable
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
(although I'm sure the author of Skyfire is thrilled about that choice since it's making him rich beyond his wildest dreams all because Apple is run by an egomaniac).
I don't know what "him" you are talking about. DVC labs (http://www.skyfire.com/component/weblinks/63-press-releases/26-dvc-labs-raises-48-million-in-financing-announces-board), provider of the Skyfire app we're discussing, was founded in 2006. They have apps on a variety of handheld platforms; they have now expanded to the iOS platform.
The Skyfire app is distinct from most apps: for the App purchase price, they must also provide the video translation service. They must provide servers and purchase substantial incoming and outgoing bandwidth for the videos. Skyfire does have a lot of experience providing this kind of service on other handheld platforms; they should be able to pull it off and have a reasonable return for their investment.
Skyfire has figured out a way for users to run Flash-wapped videos without ever having to expose their handhelds to the risks of running Flash. That's a neat trick; they should be rewarded for those efforts.
Any Flash developer has the ability to cross-compile and release their Flash code as an iOS app. If there are Flash apps that do something that no third-party iOS app does, it should be trivial for those Flash developers to add their app to the App Store. They can either release those apps for free or make money on them.
What exact Flash code are you running that there is not already an iOS App that can do exactly the same job? Please be specific. If there are unique Flash apps, have you asked the developer why they don't release it as a standalone iOS app?
There. That's two more reasons why Apple's choice was a good one. If you wish to continue this discussion, please make sure to address all six. Thanks!
I am elated that iOS Safari has no Flash support. I do not want the CPU suck, the identity suck, the unpredictable behavior, and the exposure to Adobe bugs. If you want those things, feel free to get an Android device.
It would be better if Apple provided its users with a choice of whether they want to enable a flash plugin or not in their devices instead of screwing us all over by making so many web sites unusable
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
(although I'm sure the author of Skyfire is thrilled about that choice since it's making him rich beyond his wildest dreams all because Apple is run by an egomaniac).
I don't know what "him" you are talking about. DVC labs (http://www.skyfire.com/component/weblinks/63-press-releases/26-dvc-labs-raises-48-million-in-financing-announces-board), provider of the Skyfire app we're discussing, was founded in 2006. They have apps on a variety of handheld platforms; they have now expanded to the iOS platform.
The Skyfire app is distinct from most apps: for the App purchase price, they must also provide the video translation service. They must provide servers and purchase substantial incoming and outgoing bandwidth for the videos. Skyfire does have a lot of experience providing this kind of service on other handheld platforms; they should be able to pull it off and have a reasonable return for their investment.
Skyfire has figured out a way for users to run Flash-wapped videos without ever having to expose their handhelds to the risks of running Flash. That's a neat trick; they should be rewarded for those efforts.
Any Flash developer has the ability to cross-compile and release their Flash code as an iOS app. If there are Flash apps that do something that no third-party iOS app does, it should be trivial for those Flash developers to add their app to the App Store. They can either release those apps for free or make money on them.
What exact Flash code are you running that there is not already an iOS App that can do exactly the same job? Please be specific. If there are unique Flash apps, have you asked the developer why they don't release it as a standalone iOS app?
There. That's two more reasons why Apple's choice was a good one. If you wish to continue this discussion, please make sure to address all six. Thanks!
andrewsd
Apr 22, 06:22 PM
Waiting for LTE. As long as I can still play FIFA on it I am cool with waiting till the iP6. My iPhone 4 is just fine
*LTD*
Apr 22, 05:02 PM
And by "copied Palm" of course you mean "patented themselves back before Feb. 2010."
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/02/03/apple-granted-patent-for-touch-sensitive-bezel/
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/02/apples-ipad-may-gain-an-intelligent-bezel-in-the-future.html
SSssshhhh!!
Let them troll. Apple news has been too good the past few years. Too many amazing products.
At least let them have *something*, even if it's completely inaccurate. :D
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/02/03/apple-granted-patent-for-touch-sensitive-bezel/
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/02/apples-ipad-may-gain-an-intelligent-bezel-in-the-future.html
SSssshhhh!!
Let them troll. Apple news has been too good the past few years. Too many amazing products.
At least let them have *something*, even if it's completely inaccurate. :D
robkot
Apr 22, 04:27 PM
It is know that apple has serval prototype iPhones. This is interesting at the least but seeing 3G at the top kinda sucks. We need a 4g faster device.
Full of Win
Apr 24, 10:13 PM
whats not to say someone just changed the carrier name? I don't own an iphone but I did search and its totally possible.
There is more to this than the carrier tag.
I don't see a reason apple would need to create an iPhone for T-Mobile if the AT&T plan goes through. If it's rejected than maybe thats a reason then to possibly go on T-Mobile.
As noted in this thread... adding an extra band opens oter networks besides TM. Also, if purchased, TM cannot flick a switch on all their towers to make them at&t compliant.
There is more to this than the carrier tag.
I don't see a reason apple would need to create an iPhone for T-Mobile if the AT&T plan goes through. If it's rejected than maybe thats a reason then to possibly go on T-Mobile.
As noted in this thread... adding an extra band opens oter networks besides TM. Also, if purchased, TM cannot flick a switch on all their towers to make them at&t compliant.
calderone
Jan 30, 03:44 PM
I just ordered this bag
I was just looking at this one, it looks huge on the site. If you could, shoot a line back on what you think.
I was just looking at this one, it looks huge on the site. If you could, shoot a line back on what you think.
countach
Oct 24, 09:14 AM
I was disappointed that the resolution was not updated to 1920x1200...I would assume this would have added siginificant costs? or maybe they think the current resolution is good enough and that there is little noticable difference between the current vs 1920x1200 ? Anyone else feel this is a big deal? Reasons why the higher resolution is not necessary? Thanks
On a windows machine, everything seemed absurdly small under 1920x1200, but it might not be such a problem on a mac where more stuff is scaled. I would have liked to see the bigger resolution though.
On a windows machine, everything seemed absurdly small under 1920x1200, but it might not be such a problem on a mac where more stuff is scaled. I would have liked to see the bigger resolution though.
CFreymarc
Apr 13, 10:36 PM
Big deal.
I swear Apple got more market share over the publicity about the delay than the actual delivery of the product. Remind me to delay a custom color of a new product so the press can bitch about it too. Well played in The Loop, well played!
I swear Apple got more market share over the publicity about the delay than the actual delivery of the product. Remind me to delay a custom color of a new product so the press can bitch about it too. Well played in The Loop, well played!
No comments:
Post a Comment