seanpholman
Mar 16, 09:52 AM
Looks like I will skip today since I still have to drop my daughter off at school. How big is the line at SCP?
--Sean
--Sean
admanimal
May 3, 08:20 AM
Do Apple stores tend to carry maxed out spec versions of the iMac like I know they sometimes do with other models? Specifically ones with SSDs...
wmmk
Aug 15, 01:23 PM
The images will return shortly. I overloaded the guides server with that.
arn
some images are up, but others are not. hmmmmm.........
arn
some images are up, but others are not. hmmmmm.........
Surely
Apr 28, 07:19 PM
.
Hey, Jonny I've for CEO!!!! Not.
Looks like his brain went to England but he left his body behind to do some last minute 'designs'. Nice attention to detail, all you had to do was change the color, genius. :rolleyes:
Yes, that's all they had to do. It was that simple......that's why it came out so quickly.:rolleyes:
I've ≠ Ive.
Hey, Jonny I've for CEO!!!! Not.
Looks like his brain went to England but he left his body behind to do some last minute 'designs'. Nice attention to detail, all you had to do was change the color, genius. :rolleyes:
Yes, that's all they had to do. It was that simple......that's why it came out so quickly.:rolleyes:
I've ≠ Ive.
Rigby
Apr 15, 10:10 AM
Apple has posted a note detailing the security fixes in 4.3.2:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4606
They include blacklisting of the fake Comodo SSL certificates (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/comodo-compromise/) as well as fixes for holes in Webkit that malicious web sites can potentially use to execute code on the device.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4606
They include blacklisting of the fake Comodo SSL certificates (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/comodo-compromise/) as well as fixes for holes in Webkit that malicious web sites can potentially use to execute code on the device.
Tonezorz
May 4, 09:22 AM
Bunch of lying crap.
Thanks for calling me a liar. My date moved, without explanation, as quoted in the story. The only thing I can personally think of is dropping a third line from the family plan. Other than that, and thanks to autopay, my bill for the remaining two iPhones on the plan is rather expensive, and always paid in full and on time, so the other argument is invalid as well.
Thanks for calling me a liar. My date moved, without explanation, as quoted in the story. The only thing I can personally think of is dropping a third line from the family plan. Other than that, and thanks to autopay, my bill for the remaining two iPhones on the plan is rather expensive, and always paid in full and on time, so the other argument is invalid as well.
leekohler
Apr 27, 01:27 PM
Fair enough, not fact but a blatantly obvious observation which by no means is false, as others have agreed. It may be difficult for you to put things in perspective, perhaps due to the strong emotion after watching what unfolded.
How can you be sure of that? And you're calling me out on applying the word "fact"? Quite ironic.
I seem to have hit a nerve for pointing it out as not genuine, my initial post wasn't even focused on that specific point, but the other poster appeared to be profoundly upset with my reasoning.
No- you hit a nerve when you tried to claim speculation as fact. That annoys me more than anything.
How can you be sure of that? And you're calling me out on applying the word "fact"? Quite ironic.
I seem to have hit a nerve for pointing it out as not genuine, my initial post wasn't even focused on that specific point, but the other poster appeared to be profoundly upset with my reasoning.
No- you hit a nerve when you tried to claim speculation as fact. That annoys me more than anything.
Jerry Spoon
Jul 10, 09:55 AM
This could get me to finally start using Pages. Right now, MS Word is just something I'm a lot more used to and Pages doesn't give me a reason to switch. I'm not one for newsletters and other graphically oriented word processing.
I can see myself switching though, b/c I'm definitely a keynote user now and can't remember the last time I touched PowerPoint.
We've got awhile to wait though.
I can see myself switching though, b/c I'm definitely a keynote user now and can't remember the last time I touched PowerPoint.
We've got awhile to wait though.
weitzner
Jul 24, 04:56 PM
i have a mighty mouse for my iMac, and i've never had a problem with the scroll ball "sticking" or recognizing right clicks. i like it a lot and i am quite psyched for this.
roland.g
Apr 12, 09:36 AM
At least they used the image of the phone for this article and not the stage shot of Steve with iPhone on the Keynote screen. Seriously, every time I see that stage shot, it implies an actual announcement, as opposed to a rumor regarding the product.
leekohler
Mar 8, 02:14 PM
You're quite welcome.
I love Maher, but most lame comedy ever? What about Me and the Chimp, It's About Time, Captain Nice, The Lucy Show, Family Matters, Webster, and Glenn Beck?
I would like to see them pull off a change of actor for once, without changing the character. I think it's an insult to the audience's intelligence that networks think we can't accept someone else in the role. They always go for the knee-jerk reaction, which is to kill off the character. Give us some credit, and a chance for another actor to make the role his own. It's not like it's unheard of. How many James Bonds have there been??
They did it with Darren on Bewitched too.
I love Maher, but most lame comedy ever? What about Me and the Chimp, It's About Time, Captain Nice, The Lucy Show, Family Matters, Webster, and Glenn Beck?
I would like to see them pull off a change of actor for once, without changing the character. I think it's an insult to the audience's intelligence that networks think we can't accept someone else in the role. They always go for the knee-jerk reaction, which is to kill off the character. Give us some credit, and a chance for another actor to make the role his own. It's not like it's unheard of. How many James Bonds have there been??
They did it with Darren on Bewitched too.
BrianMojo
Jul 26, 03:54 PM
I can look at diagrams all day long
I'm impressed by your endurance! ;)
I'm impressed by your endurance! ;)
entatlrg
Sep 17, 08:12 AM
Here's my latest acquisition to the flynn family. I got it from a member here at MR in the Marketplace.
http://ftp1.net/img/dellmini10v.jpg
I needed a portable computer to supplement my desktop, for when I travel (which is infrequent). This is why I opted for a netbook, I needed the ability to connect to my companies network and access programs/computers/servers (something an iPad cannot do) and also hold my photos when I do travel.
The used mini fit that bill, its a hackintosh, so I still get to use OSX, its cheap, small and functional.
Nice, can't be the size and weight for travel.
Did you sell your 15" MBP, I recall you can the AG screen, then glossy but didn't like it so much.
http://ftp1.net/img/dellmini10v.jpg
I needed a portable computer to supplement my desktop, for when I travel (which is infrequent). This is why I opted for a netbook, I needed the ability to connect to my companies network and access programs/computers/servers (something an iPad cannot do) and also hold my photos when I do travel.
The used mini fit that bill, its a hackintosh, so I still get to use OSX, its cheap, small and functional.
Nice, can't be the size and weight for travel.
Did you sell your 15" MBP, I recall you can the AG screen, then glossy but didn't like it so much.
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
Aadhil
Sep 30, 02:07 PM
You know what's funny? I've had ATT for over 5 years and have barely had 5 dropped calls and one of them was an iphone OS issue with OS 2.0. I live in the Silicon Valley so maybe coverage is just exceptionally good in my area, though I recall coverage being decent over in the Adirondacks in NY two years ago.
Snowy_River
Jul 12, 06:40 PM
I'm sorry if my comment came off as being snide.
But it really bothers me when people post how wonderful an app is and how useful it is and how it completely replaces a much more expensive app. When in reality it is only a simple consumer level product.
Others read this forum and buy Pages thinking that they can eliminate the use of Word. Then they find out that it really isn't that compatible with Word files. If you email a windows user a .doc file exported from pages, 7 times out of 10 they have problems with it.
Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. Almost all law firms require a revision history. Collaboration tools are useally also required. Word handles this expertly. Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.
I'm glad you found a solution to your problem and I am glad that Pages satisfies your needs for word processing. Maybe someday it will move out of the "consumer" ranks and into the "Pro" ranks when more functionality is added. Apple seems to know the niche that they are addressing very well.
I've been using Pages since it first came out, and I've exchanged documents that were exported from Pages into Word format with other users without any problems. In general, of all word processors that I've worked with (and I've tried out quite a few), Pages has some of the best Word compatibility that I've seen. (That's not to say that I haven't seen some things move - i.e. graphics - on export, but the errors, if any, are generally minor).
To go back to the CAD analogy, in years gone by AutoCAD was the only CAD program, for all intents and purposes. Any new CAD programs were frequently measured, first and foremost, by their ability to exchange documents with AutoCAD. Of course, there was never a perfect ability to make such exchanges, as AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) kept the definitions of the dwg file format secret, and usually changed it from one version to the next. So, it made import/export difficult for the competitors, much like what MS does with Office. Did the fact that the exchanges weren't perfect mean that companies who chose to use other CAD packages weren't really professionals? No.
Again, these are just tools.
Will Pages fit the bill for everyone? Of course not. Does MS Word fit the bill for everyone? No. That's why there are different products out there. Certainly, Pages is not as feature rich (you named some specifics, though you missed some of Pages features in your citation ;) ) as MS Word. It's also a much younger program. Is it going to be a Word Killer? Probably not for the foreseeable future. But it's quite capable of doing what probably 90% of what the Word users out there use Word for. If the other 10% are stupid enough to buy it without checking to see whether or not it has the features that they need to do their jobs, then they deserve to have their money go to Apple.
Oh, and what's this about "pro print shops" only taking Word files? I've never been to a print shop that didn't like PDF.
But it really bothers me when people post how wonderful an app is and how useful it is and how it completely replaces a much more expensive app. When in reality it is only a simple consumer level product.
Others read this forum and buy Pages thinking that they can eliminate the use of Word. Then they find out that it really isn't that compatible with Word files. If you email a windows user a .doc file exported from pages, 7 times out of 10 they have problems with it.
Most pro printshops, publishers, law firms etc. only except word .doc files. Almost all law firms require a revision history. Collaboration tools are useally also required. Word handles this expertly. Plus it has table of contents tools, book publishing tools, bibliography tools, direct faxing,multitudes of custom templates, VB programing hooks, etc. etc. None of this has an equivalent in Pages.
I'm glad you found a solution to your problem and I am glad that Pages satisfies your needs for word processing. Maybe someday it will move out of the "consumer" ranks and into the "Pro" ranks when more functionality is added. Apple seems to know the niche that they are addressing very well.
I've been using Pages since it first came out, and I've exchanged documents that were exported from Pages into Word format with other users without any problems. In general, of all word processors that I've worked with (and I've tried out quite a few), Pages has some of the best Word compatibility that I've seen. (That's not to say that I haven't seen some things move - i.e. graphics - on export, but the errors, if any, are generally minor).
To go back to the CAD analogy, in years gone by AutoCAD was the only CAD program, for all intents and purposes. Any new CAD programs were frequently measured, first and foremost, by their ability to exchange documents with AutoCAD. Of course, there was never a perfect ability to make such exchanges, as AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) kept the definitions of the dwg file format secret, and usually changed it from one version to the next. So, it made import/export difficult for the competitors, much like what MS does with Office. Did the fact that the exchanges weren't perfect mean that companies who chose to use other CAD packages weren't really professionals? No.
Again, these are just tools.
Will Pages fit the bill for everyone? Of course not. Does MS Word fit the bill for everyone? No. That's why there are different products out there. Certainly, Pages is not as feature rich (you named some specifics, though you missed some of Pages features in your citation ;) ) as MS Word. It's also a much younger program. Is it going to be a Word Killer? Probably not for the foreseeable future. But it's quite capable of doing what probably 90% of what the Word users out there use Word for. If the other 10% are stupid enough to buy it without checking to see whether or not it has the features that they need to do their jobs, then they deserve to have their money go to Apple.
Oh, and what's this about "pro print shops" only taking Word files? I've never been to a print shop that didn't like PDF.
biggerbearbrian
Oct 19, 09:03 AM
*sigh* How many times do we have to refute your assertions with facts before you stop repeating them?
To wit, the iPod is not Apple's "cash cow". By definition, if there is something that gains more revenue/profit than the iPod, then the iPod cannot be the cash cow. 58% of Apple's revenue still came from sales of Macs. Gross margins for both Macs and iPods has always been similar (hovering a bit below 30%), so the Mac also generates the majority of the profit for Apple.
As for Apple's innovative spirit lacking when it comes to the Macs, let's just point out that it Apple updated the iPod in October 2005 to the 5th generation, and we JUST got the 5.5th generation last month. Apple took a year to add slightly brighter screens, better battery life (only for video), and games. The nano just gained the anodized aluminum exterior -- wow, Apple's reaching back to the past for it's innovation now! And the shuffle got slimmed down and consolidated into one product. All this doesn't sound exactly like innovation to me. (Of course, Apple doesn't really need to innovate, since they're already selling iPods by the boatload.)
In contrast, Apple brought all of its Macs over to the Intel processor. The Mac Pro was dramatically higher value, what with double-wide graphics card slot, dual optical drives, 4 internal hard drive bays, etc., etc. All Macs (except for the Mac Pro) now have Front Row and a remote, which is a great feature. Built-in iSights have also migrated across the entire product line. The MacBook and MacBook Pro now have MagSafe -- a great innovation. Boot Camp is now supported on all new Macs. The Xserve has new features like lights-out management, redundant power supplies, etc. And we've seen some great things coming for Leopard, what with Time Machine and Spaces and iChat Theater and Core Animation and iCal Server, etc., etc., etc.
It seems to me that Apple is innovating more on the Macintosh side of things than they are with the iPod. What are they going to add next on the iPod -- wireless? *gasp*, so innovative!
Seriously, can we stop with this myth already? It's the same thing with all of Apple's "woes" with quality control (which was busted by the recent consumer reports articles where Apple has actually brought DOWN the number of new computers needing repair in their first year). It's something that's repeated ad nauseum by a few vocal people, when it's really not a problem at all. Same here: everybody gawks and writes about the iPod precisely because more people can afford it and more people can use it with whatever computer they have. So, obviously, you will hear more about the iPod.
Let's see if repeating myself again has any effect: the iPod is not Apple's cash cow!
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :rolleyes:
I think the argument can go either way. While iPod (which I love btw) is less than half Apple revenue ok. But if they were to just add the iPod line today, and have the amount of revenue they are reporting from it, the financial report would be "iPod has given us nearly a 100% increase in revenue".
So get some hershey's syrup, cause we got milk.
To wit, the iPod is not Apple's "cash cow". By definition, if there is something that gains more revenue/profit than the iPod, then the iPod cannot be the cash cow. 58% of Apple's revenue still came from sales of Macs. Gross margins for both Macs and iPods has always been similar (hovering a bit below 30%), so the Mac also generates the majority of the profit for Apple.
As for Apple's innovative spirit lacking when it comes to the Macs, let's just point out that it Apple updated the iPod in October 2005 to the 5th generation, and we JUST got the 5.5th generation last month. Apple took a year to add slightly brighter screens, better battery life (only for video), and games. The nano just gained the anodized aluminum exterior -- wow, Apple's reaching back to the past for it's innovation now! And the shuffle got slimmed down and consolidated into one product. All this doesn't sound exactly like innovation to me. (Of course, Apple doesn't really need to innovate, since they're already selling iPods by the boatload.)
In contrast, Apple brought all of its Macs over to the Intel processor. The Mac Pro was dramatically higher value, what with double-wide graphics card slot, dual optical drives, 4 internal hard drive bays, etc., etc. All Macs (except for the Mac Pro) now have Front Row and a remote, which is a great feature. Built-in iSights have also migrated across the entire product line. The MacBook and MacBook Pro now have MagSafe -- a great innovation. Boot Camp is now supported on all new Macs. The Xserve has new features like lights-out management, redundant power supplies, etc. And we've seen some great things coming for Leopard, what with Time Machine and Spaces and iChat Theater and Core Animation and iCal Server, etc., etc., etc.
It seems to me that Apple is innovating more on the Macintosh side of things than they are with the iPod. What are they going to add next on the iPod -- wireless? *gasp*, so innovative!
Seriously, can we stop with this myth already? It's the same thing with all of Apple's "woes" with quality control (which was busted by the recent consumer reports articles where Apple has actually brought DOWN the number of new computers needing repair in their first year). It's something that's repeated ad nauseum by a few vocal people, when it's really not a problem at all. Same here: everybody gawks and writes about the iPod precisely because more people can afford it and more people can use it with whatever computer they have. So, obviously, you will hear more about the iPod.
Let's see if repeating myself again has any effect: the iPod is not Apple's cash cow!
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :rolleyes:
I think the argument can go either way. While iPod (which I love btw) is less than half Apple revenue ok. But if they were to just add the iPod line today, and have the amount of revenue they are reporting from it, the financial report would be "iPod has given us nearly a 100% increase in revenue".
So get some hershey's syrup, cause we got milk.
Fotek2001
Aug 17, 09:51 AM
Uhm, is it me, or do i see more and more inconsistencies in the ui?
the buttons on the spotlight window or nothing like the buttons on the preview window for example..and i wonder why.
not that tiger is that consistent...
Don't forget this is a preview. I don't think we're seeing the full picture yet.
the buttons on the spotlight window or nothing like the buttons on the preview window for example..and i wonder why.
not that tiger is that consistent...
Don't forget this is a preview. I don't think we're seeing the full picture yet.
Popeye206
May 3, 11:37 PM
Since the iPhone 4 is a strong hardware device and now that we have the iPad 2 out, I think most of the focus for the short term has been on Lion and iOS 5. iOS 5 could bring some really great features to the existing hardware and buy Apple the time to make the next hardware change more significant.
We will see... but in the long run, it should be good.
We will see... but in the long run, it should be good.
MrNomNoms
Apr 15, 04:58 PM
The "view" buttons in finder changed back to the old style.
I always found the 'slider' buttons really out of place and difficult to get my head around - they always seemed to be out of place when it came to how one navigated the UI. The kind of 'slider' approach seemed to be more appropriate for a touch screen approach than if you were using a mouse or touchpad considering that you'll need 'click and movement' occurring at the same time which is difficult using the existing hardware (holding down the pad button then moving ones finger at the same time).
OK, here is a historic example:
"Apple missed Leopard's release time frame as originally announced by Apple�s CEO Steve Jobs. When first discussed in June Jobs had stated that Apple intended to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007. A year later, this was amended to Spring 2007; however on 12 April Apple issued a statement that its release would be delayed until October 2007 because of the development of the iPhone."
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard)
I do not believe that Adobe, Microsoft and other big companies need just a few months to make their apps Lion-compatible. Will Apple release Lion, if major companies do not support it? Unlikely. Q1 2012 is more likely.
I highly doubt it given that the changes made in Leopard were a lot more substantial when compared to Snow Leopard and Lion. If you look through the WWDC sessions for that year there were many lower level parts that were completely removed and replaced, file notification API's (of which there were many) being replaced with a �ber one to rule them all, changes in the kernel for UNIX compatibility etc. Even if Apple didn't re-allocate some developers to iOS it is doubtful they could have pulled off an early Leopard release given what they had decided to change in the underlying operating system.
Regarding the re-allocation of resources to iOS, to be fair iOS needed a heck of a lot of TLC given how far behind other smart phone operating systems it was at the time. Fast forward to today and you'll see that there isn't the same level of urgency given that both iOS and Mac OS X are pretty mature. Where as 2-3 years ago there was a massive laundry list of features that were missing from iOS it has pretty much developed into a list of 'it would be nice to have' rather than 'really need this or the platform will fail'. For Mac OS X it is the final stretch of Cocoa-ilsation which is the completing of the last remaining frameworks developers have been waiting for (AV Foundation pretty much replaces QuickTime Framework) with Apple upgrading their own applications so their middleware is end to end Cocoa based.
I always found the 'slider' buttons really out of place and difficult to get my head around - they always seemed to be out of place when it came to how one navigated the UI. The kind of 'slider' approach seemed to be more appropriate for a touch screen approach than if you were using a mouse or touchpad considering that you'll need 'click and movement' occurring at the same time which is difficult using the existing hardware (holding down the pad button then moving ones finger at the same time).
OK, here is a historic example:
"Apple missed Leopard's release time frame as originally announced by Apple�s CEO Steve Jobs. When first discussed in June Jobs had stated that Apple intended to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007. A year later, this was amended to Spring 2007; however on 12 April Apple issued a statement that its release would be delayed until October 2007 because of the development of the iPhone."
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard)
I do not believe that Adobe, Microsoft and other big companies need just a few months to make their apps Lion-compatible. Will Apple release Lion, if major companies do not support it? Unlikely. Q1 2012 is more likely.
I highly doubt it given that the changes made in Leopard were a lot more substantial when compared to Snow Leopard and Lion. If you look through the WWDC sessions for that year there were many lower level parts that were completely removed and replaced, file notification API's (of which there were many) being replaced with a �ber one to rule them all, changes in the kernel for UNIX compatibility etc. Even if Apple didn't re-allocate some developers to iOS it is doubtful they could have pulled off an early Leopard release given what they had decided to change in the underlying operating system.
Regarding the re-allocation of resources to iOS, to be fair iOS needed a heck of a lot of TLC given how far behind other smart phone operating systems it was at the time. Fast forward to today and you'll see that there isn't the same level of urgency given that both iOS and Mac OS X are pretty mature. Where as 2-3 years ago there was a massive laundry list of features that were missing from iOS it has pretty much developed into a list of 'it would be nice to have' rather than 'really need this or the platform will fail'. For Mac OS X it is the final stretch of Cocoa-ilsation which is the completing of the last remaining frameworks developers have been waiting for (AV Foundation pretty much replaces QuickTime Framework) with Apple upgrading their own applications so their middleware is end to end Cocoa based.
stroked
Apr 27, 02:36 PM
Nope, the thing you haven't understood is that I thought it was a Clever idea, as right after, the attackers left. Nothing "crappy" about acknowledging something which saved her from further sufferance. Of course, you interpreted my post as being insincere and cold, but it was merely an observation and never did I have the intention to be hurtful.
No, but he assumed your intention was hurtful
No, but he assumed your intention was hurtful
blackburn
Apr 29, 03:38 PM
I still like my cd's (of not very known bands). And also I wouldn't buy songs from the artists listed in the article:p
Chundles
Jul 25, 10:07 AM
one battery? how does that work?
Low power drain, it can run on one battery but runs longer on two. Might also be nice for those who found the old ones too heavy.
Low power drain, it can run on one battery but runs longer on two. Might also be nice for those who found the old ones too heavy.
philgilder
Mar 31, 10:28 AM
it looked way better in the last version of lion.
that is seriously ugly, although it works on the ipad.
that is seriously ugly, although it works on the ipad.
No comments:
Post a Comment