deniseeliza
Aug 29, 02:44 PM
I don't believe Apple would (or should) license out Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. This is because Apple is a hardware company that uses Mac OS X to sell hardware. I wouldn't want it to be licensed out anyway, because then we would have to deal with registration key nightmares. Right now, there's nothing but your conscience and a license agreement you probably threw away keeping you from installing one copy of Mac OS X on every Mac you can get your hands on. Not that I do that, but I sure like just popping in my disk and reinstalling whenever it strikes my fancy.
On to the support issue, I think since the beginning of technical support there have always been those who complain that quality has really gone down and back in the good ol' days, you never had any problems, ever! And now, by golly, it's a coin toss whether you get a machine that even turns on!
Right, gramps, and back in your day, you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow with no boots and you liked it.
And 25% of new machines being lemons? Last quarter, Apple reported they shipped 1,327,000 computers. If we call a quarter 90 days, and assume that 25% of them are dead, that's more than 3,600 computers sold defective every single day. Are you kidding me? You really think a major hardware company would sell 3,600 defective computers every single day and get away with it?
This is what's really happening: Apple is selling more machines than ever. Apple's customers have greater access to the internet than ever. Even if the rate of failure stays the same, you have more customers with more internet savvy to come whine and moan on bulletin boards.
Yes, you deserve a perfectly functioning computer and you have the right to complain when your computer is broken. So call Apple or go down to your local service provider and get your machine serviced under warranty. That's what it's there for. It's also the number 1 best way to help Apple get clued in to potential issues with their products. They're not going to issue a recall because a bunch of bulletin board users complain to each other over and over again until they convince each other that there isn't a single MacBook Pro in the world that functions properly.
On to the support issue, I think since the beginning of technical support there have always been those who complain that quality has really gone down and back in the good ol' days, you never had any problems, ever! And now, by golly, it's a coin toss whether you get a machine that even turns on!
Right, gramps, and back in your day, you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow with no boots and you liked it.
And 25% of new machines being lemons? Last quarter, Apple reported they shipped 1,327,000 computers. If we call a quarter 90 days, and assume that 25% of them are dead, that's more than 3,600 computers sold defective every single day. Are you kidding me? You really think a major hardware company would sell 3,600 defective computers every single day and get away with it?
This is what's really happening: Apple is selling more machines than ever. Apple's customers have greater access to the internet than ever. Even if the rate of failure stays the same, you have more customers with more internet savvy to come whine and moan on bulletin boards.
Yes, you deserve a perfectly functioning computer and you have the right to complain when your computer is broken. So call Apple or go down to your local service provider and get your machine serviced under warranty. That's what it's there for. It's also the number 1 best way to help Apple get clued in to potential issues with their products. They're not going to issue a recall because a bunch of bulletin board users complain to each other over and over again until they convince each other that there isn't a single MacBook Pro in the world that functions properly.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 8, 10:18 AM
Actually, Sony explained that the damage is not unlocked or progressive as one dives deeper into the game. It's just that as one goes further into the game, one is able to FINALLY collect more premium cars which do have the better damage engine.
I have close to 20 premium cars (level 17) and i've not noticed much in the way of damage. I do generally drive very safely though.
I both love and hate how many tracks there are in the game. Cape Ring Periphery has quickly become one of my favorites and it only shows up in a few evens. The full SSR5 track is incredible as well, but it isnt used as much as it should be, imo. They use Tsukuba and Suzuka a lot early on and i was getting tired of them by the time i got to the Pro races.
I have close to 20 premium cars (level 17) and i've not noticed much in the way of damage. I do generally drive very safely though.
I both love and hate how many tracks there are in the game. Cape Ring Periphery has quickly become one of my favorites and it only shows up in a few evens. The full SSR5 track is incredible as well, but it isnt used as much as it should be, imo. They use Tsukuba and Suzuka a lot early on and i was getting tired of them by the time i got to the Pro races.
iLilana
Apr 8, 01:19 AM
bestbuy (and futureshop..same company) insist apple purchasers buy their own over priced ****** extended warranty on apple products. I'm not sure its allowed by apple or not but it seems a bit shady. I hate shopping in those places.
mwayne85
Apr 6, 12:53 PM
The most interesting thing here is how some people hang on every word over updates to the MacBook Air line.
Some won't touch it without a Sandy Bridge update, others want it left alone to save the NVIDIA graphics.
From dated chips, future proofing, when to buy, getting in at the right time and on and on ...
What gives?
In 90% of the tasks the average MacBook Air owner does are they really going to notice it either way?
Future proofing/saving a few hundred dollars ... there is no such thing ... just look back at the electronics you purchased in the past... how has 'future proofing' worked for you so far? lol
Like it. Buy it. Enjoy it.
People who keep waiting for the next rev will never buy a computer. The "right time to buy" is probably not until the Macbook Air has Skymont in 2015. :p
Some won't touch it without a Sandy Bridge update, others want it left alone to save the NVIDIA graphics.
From dated chips, future proofing, when to buy, getting in at the right time and on and on ...
What gives?
In 90% of the tasks the average MacBook Air owner does are they really going to notice it either way?
Future proofing/saving a few hundred dollars ... there is no such thing ... just look back at the electronics you purchased in the past... how has 'future proofing' worked for you so far? lol
Like it. Buy it. Enjoy it.
People who keep waiting for the next rev will never buy a computer. The "right time to buy" is probably not until the Macbook Air has Skymont in 2015. :p
DeVizardofOZ
Aug 30, 06:14 AM
I don't believe Apple would (or should) license out Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. This is because Apple is a hardware company that uses Mac OS X to sell hardware. I wouldn't want it to be licensed out anyway, because then we would have to deal with registration key nightmares. Right now, there's nothing but your conscience and a license agreement you probably threw away keeping you from installing one copy of Mac OS X on every Mac you can get your hands on. Not that I do that, but I sure like just popping in my disk and reinstalling whenever it strikes my fancy.
On to the support issue, I think since the beginning of technical support there have always been those who complain that quality has really gone down and back in the good ol' days, you never had any problems, ever! And now, by golly, it's a coin toss whether you get a machine that even turns on!
Right, gramps, and back in your day, you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow with no boots and you liked it.
And 25% of new machines being lemons? Last quarter, Apple reported they shipped 1,327,000 computers. If we call a quarter 90 days, and assume that 25% of them are dead, that's more than 3,600 computers sold defective every single day. Are you kidding me? You really think a major hardware company would sell 3,600 defective computers every single day and get away with it?
This is what's really happening: Apple is selling more machines than ever. Apple's customers have greater access to the internet than ever. Even if the rate of failure stays the same, you have more customers with more internet savvy to come whine and moan on bulletin boards.
Yes, you deserve a perfectly functioning computer and you have the right to complain when your computer is broken. So call Apple or go down to your local service provider and get your machine serviced under warranty. That's what it's there for. It's also the number 1 best way to help Apple get clued in to potential issues with their products. They're not going to issue a recall because a bunch of bulletin board users complain to each other over and over again until they convince each other that there isn't a single MacBook Pro in the world that functions properly.
_________________________________________________________________________
because, no matter what I hear around the board, all of you forgot to consider, that there must be a large number of faulty products WHICH DID NOT SLIP THROUGH THE SLOPPY CQ AT THE FACTORY. Therefore 20-25% lemons is indeed possible and much too high a percentage in any manufacturing process.
Best
On to the support issue, I think since the beginning of technical support there have always been those who complain that quality has really gone down and back in the good ol' days, you never had any problems, ever! And now, by golly, it's a coin toss whether you get a machine that even turns on!
Right, gramps, and back in your day, you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow with no boots and you liked it.
And 25% of new machines being lemons? Last quarter, Apple reported they shipped 1,327,000 computers. If we call a quarter 90 days, and assume that 25% of them are dead, that's more than 3,600 computers sold defective every single day. Are you kidding me? You really think a major hardware company would sell 3,600 defective computers every single day and get away with it?
This is what's really happening: Apple is selling more machines than ever. Apple's customers have greater access to the internet than ever. Even if the rate of failure stays the same, you have more customers with more internet savvy to come whine and moan on bulletin boards.
Yes, you deserve a perfectly functioning computer and you have the right to complain when your computer is broken. So call Apple or go down to your local service provider and get your machine serviced under warranty. That's what it's there for. It's also the number 1 best way to help Apple get clued in to potential issues with their products. They're not going to issue a recall because a bunch of bulletin board users complain to each other over and over again until they convince each other that there isn't a single MacBook Pro in the world that functions properly.
_________________________________________________________________________
because, no matter what I hear around the board, all of you forgot to consider, that there must be a large number of faulty products WHICH DID NOT SLIP THROUGH THE SLOPPY CQ AT THE FACTORY. Therefore 20-25% lemons is indeed possible and much too high a percentage in any manufacturing process.
Best
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 03:42 PM
It would be a shame to Apple toss aside its consistent record of having the industry's best support.
I have always wondered if Apple's past industry record on support was really accurate. I think that Apple had such a loyal following of users that they tended to give Apple rosey marks for what most would classify as just average support.
Now with more new users coming to the mac. Support is now getting a less biased audience who have dealt with other computer support groups and are able to make a more accurate comparison.
I have always wondered if Apple's past industry record on support was really accurate. I think that Apple had such a loyal following of users that they tended to give Apple rosey marks for what most would classify as just average support.
Now with more new users coming to the mac. Support is now getting a less biased audience who have dealt with other computer support groups and are able to make a more accurate comparison.
mccldwll
Apr 27, 08:34 AM
I think it was not a bug, nut data waiting to be sent to Apple for profit generating purposes.
Well........in Full of's case, nut data certainly was accurate.
Well........in Full of's case, nut data certainly was accurate.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
Cooknn
Aug 16, 10:43 PM
I still love my PowerPC Mac. I'm gonna shed a tear some day when I retire it. This thing is rock solid and fast (enough) :cool:
sisyphus
Jul 14, 02:34 PM
That's nice...
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
danz1123
Jun 11, 11:21 AM
Anyone know if I place a preorder on the 19th what the chances are I'll be able to make a reservation for the 24th?
marksman
Apr 11, 03:17 PM
Personally, a bigger screen > Retina Display.
So a 50" SD tv is better than a 42" High Def tv?
So a 50" SD tv is better than a 42" High Def tv?
heisetax
Jul 14, 03:43 PM
This is good news for me.. it will make it easy to resist buying one this year. No 3ghz xeon, no bluray, no new case design.
This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
bigmc6000
Jul 27, 09:59 AM
"...Core 2 Duo chips need less electricity, drawing just 65 watts compared to the Pentium 4’s 95 watts and Pentium D’s 130 watts"
Good Lord - does anybody know what the G5 is? I'd imagine that the elaborate cooling system in the current G5 towers probably won't be needed it it's running anything like the D's...
And about the WWDC, I think it is possible for Merom laptops, Core 2 iMacs, Leopard Preview, Mac Pro's and possibly Movie service. However, I think the movie thing could be replaced by a larger capacity nano but that's about it. Only 1, at most, iTunes/iPod announcement with all the Mac stuff that should be addressed.
Good Lord - does anybody know what the G5 is? I'd imagine that the elaborate cooling system in the current G5 towers probably won't be needed it it's running anything like the D's...
And about the WWDC, I think it is possible for Merom laptops, Core 2 iMacs, Leopard Preview, Mac Pro's and possibly Movie service. However, I think the movie thing could be replaced by a larger capacity nano but that's about it. Only 1, at most, iTunes/iPod announcement with all the Mac stuff that should be addressed.
IscariotJ
Mar 26, 09:21 AM
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
Part of what makes OSX great......
Part of what makes OSX great......
GermanSuplex
Jun 17, 02:01 PM
Why did Apple/RadioShack even bother? Even the manager told me the whole process was screwed up.
This is what I'm wondering. Why bother if this is how its going to be? I've seen several different outcomes to one situation: People trying to get an iPhone. My name was written on a piece of blank paper (apparantly I was the first one at my store to ask for the iPhone 4). The guy called me back an hour and a half or so later for my address and the make/model of the phone I wanted. I've gotten no further updates, no pin, etc.
*Update:
I just received an email from Radio Shack, an advertisement email with a 10% off coupon. Nothing about the iPhone though.
**Just called the store, and supposedly out of three stores in my area I was the only one who asked for a reservation before they were cut off. My reservation was supposedly successful. The guy said that the outlook is good that I'll get one on launch day, but it isn't definite. We'll see, I guess.
This is what I'm wondering. Why bother if this is how its going to be? I've seen several different outcomes to one situation: People trying to get an iPhone. My name was written on a piece of blank paper (apparantly I was the first one at my store to ask for the iPhone 4). The guy called me back an hour and a half or so later for my address and the make/model of the phone I wanted. I've gotten no further updates, no pin, etc.
*Update:
I just received an email from Radio Shack, an advertisement email with a 10% off coupon. Nothing about the iPhone though.
**Just called the store, and supposedly out of three stores in my area I was the only one who asked for a reservation before they were cut off. My reservation was supposedly successful. The guy said that the outlook is good that I'll get one on launch day, but it isn't definite. We'll see, I guess.
hcho3
Apr 19, 02:25 PM
Samsung forgot to copy apple and put the lock/power button on the side.
Lock/Power button belongs on the top of the device.
If you look at Nexus S, samsung really did copy apple's box design.
If you look at their phone/alarm/clock icons, they copied.
Samsung has no chance of winning this lawsuit. Apple was preparing to sue samsung for a long time. They just needed time to prepare.
Lock/Power button belongs on the top of the device.
If you look at Nexus S, samsung really did copy apple's box design.
If you look at their phone/alarm/clock icons, they copied.
Samsung has no chance of winning this lawsuit. Apple was preparing to sue samsung for a long time. They just needed time to prepare.
mhagerman
Nov 29, 08:22 AM
maybe this was the real reason that MS made the Zune.. just so they could set the standard for future Universal deals. I don't see it doing anything else, other than squirting...
I don't think Universal realizes how many people don't pirate music. On the other hand, I don't think they understand how ridiculously easy it would be for everyone who actually pays for music to go download it illegally and then some. They will end up losing far more than they gain with this one if it's implicated.
I don't think Universal realizes how many people don't pirate music. On the other hand, I don't think they understand how ridiculously easy it would be for everyone who actually pays for music to go download it illegally and then some. They will end up losing far more than they gain with this one if it's implicated.
Porchland
Aug 7, 03:30 PM
The side menu in the Mail (at least in the Quicktime demo on Apple) shows Notes and To Do. Wouldn't it make sense to finally bring Address Book and iCal into Mail along with these new options?
I know that would make it very Outlook but Outlook 2003 is one of the (few) things Microsoft has managed to get right.
I just don't see the need for Address Book and iCal to exist separately from Mail if they're going to be even more integrated with Mail.
I know that would make it very Outlook but Outlook 2003 is one of the (few) things Microsoft has managed to get right.
I just don't see the need for Address Book and iCal to exist separately from Mail if they're going to be even more integrated with Mail.
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:54 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Reach9
Apr 11, 02:35 PM
Why would you when android has at the moment passed apple on every standard out there?
Android hasn't passed Apple on every standard. Please give me an example of that.
But, Android phones are better smartphones than the iPhone, imo.
Android hasn't passed Apple on every standard. Please give me an example of that.
But, Android phones are better smartphones than the iPhone, imo.
law guy
Aug 5, 09:49 PM
I'd like to predict an unanticipated show stopper - a new Mac ultraportable that weighs something like 2.2 lbs and is around the thickness of a magazine. The new notebook would not be breaking new ground - there are intel PC notebooks that fit this / similar descriptions, for example the Q2010 offering by Fijitsu (illustrated in Q2010 pics that follow). http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/13/0,1425,sz=1&i=134331,00.jpg http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/Resources/35/2097637765.jpg But, new gound or not, it would be an exciting addition to the MacBook Pro line up. It would also be fun to have a product like that to catch everyone off guard.
I do have a bit of keynote fever. How do they do it? I'm not going to buy anything for a few years, and yet I can't wait to see what is unveiled. This time around, the fever pitch seems more acute than it's been since perhaps MWSF 2003 (when the Alu 12 and 17" PBs came out) - even more anticipation than then because of all of the new products expected. This is also the time when MR really shines - this is the core of the site: rumors about Macs - I love it.
I do have a bit of keynote fever. How do they do it? I'm not going to buy anything for a few years, and yet I can't wait to see what is unveiled. This time around, the fever pitch seems more acute than it's been since perhaps MWSF 2003 (when the Alu 12 and 17" PBs came out) - even more anticipation than then because of all of the new products expected. This is also the time when MR really shines - this is the core of the site: rumors about Macs - I love it.
Cachiro
Apr 6, 04:10 PM
There is one thing some people don't see, this is one company against an entire army of companies & this one company is doing a hole lot better. Apple will alway be on top when it comes to all this type of gadget get over it people and by the way, I always thought this was Mac rumor forum.
Maybe they should change there name :apple: :D
Maybe they should change there name :apple: :D
Vulpinemac
Apr 6, 03:22 PM
No matter what Apple does lately or how much they sell or how good the forecasts are for sales Apple Stock continues it quick downward slide. What the HELL!! I just do not understand it ... Specially while Google stock continues to climb at an incredible pace week, after week, after week.. :confused::confused::mad:
I have to wonder where you get your information. Apple's stock is near the top of a two-year climb of almost $250, showing only a $15 drop in the last three days while Google is almost $100 below its peak only 2 months ago and barely above its high of only a year ago. In fact, even if you only count this week, Google is $20 below its high just three days ago. Yes, Google may have a higher peak overall in the last two years, but Google has also proven to be more volatile, swinging higher--and lower than Apple over the same time period.
I have to wonder where you get your information. Apple's stock is near the top of a two-year climb of almost $250, showing only a $15 drop in the last three days while Google is almost $100 below its peak only 2 months ago and barely above its high of only a year ago. In fact, even if you only count this week, Google is $20 below its high just three days ago. Yes, Google may have a higher peak overall in the last two years, but Google has also proven to be more volatile, swinging higher--and lower than Apple over the same time period.
0 comments:
Post a Comment