SchneiderMan
Sep 15, 07:19 PM
OCZ Vertex 2E 60gb to replace the Momentus XT 500GB in my uMBP.
It's an awesome SSD, currently reviewing it. But there is no way that very little space can replace my 500GB.
It's an awesome SSD, currently reviewing it. But there is no way that very little space can replace my 500GB.
twoodcc
Oct 30, 06:17 PM
cool thats probably it then, the -16.
the processor trick is with the dev tools. there's a prefpane where u can turn off individual cores, and turn off hyperthreading. too bad there's not a dev tool for overclocking ;)
alright. let us know how the -16 works. i've read on the folding forums about some people having more success with -15, you might even give that a try also
We might take team Lituania today ;)
i hope so
the processor trick is with the dev tools. there's a prefpane where u can turn off individual cores, and turn off hyperthreading. too bad there's not a dev tool for overclocking ;)
alright. let us know how the -16 works. i've read on the folding forums about some people having more success with -15, you might even give that a try also
We might take team Lituania today ;)
i hope so
gh0sted
Jul 11, 05:34 PM
I think if Apple gets the 6G iPod to the market before Argo, MS is dead in the water. People aren't going to buy an Argo after shelling out $300-400 for an iPod. Also once everyone sees their friends with the new iPod they wont want anything else. We all know Apple has done wonders making their player an icon.
I think DRM will kill the Argo as well.
I think DRM will kill the Argo as well.
cvaldes
May 4, 09:32 AM
I'll be quite disappointed and most likely skip my first generation of iPhone if they don't integrate 4g antennas. If they're going to delay release (from their normal schedule) we would at least hope to see competitive hardware features with the android phones that come out on a seemingly daily basis.
See you next year!
:D
See you next year!
:D
more...
nies
Apr 28, 08:03 PM
I'm not a she
citi
Apr 28, 03:57 PM
Sounds like a "who cares?" kind of thing, but that's actually kind of a big deal if it creates case fragmentation. Not good. Hopefully inaccurate.
Case Fragmentation? HAAA! The funniest thing I have read all day.
Case Fragmentation? HAAA! The funniest thing I have read all day.
more...
creator2456
Jan 29, 08:15 AM
Saw 127 Hours then went to Texas Roadhouse for the girlfriends birthday. I'm still squirming from the 'scene' and stuffed from the food.
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/127-Hours-Review.jpg
http://www.coupondad.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Texas_Roadhouse_Logo.gif
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/127-Hours-Review.jpg
http://www.coupondad.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Texas_Roadhouse_Logo.gif
oliversl
Apr 28, 05:03 PM
FUD!
Just put a rule on top of both iphones and take a clear/focussed photo! Can believe this is not in Page2 :(
Just put a rule on top of both iphones and take a clear/focussed photo! Can believe this is not in Page2 :(
more...
Surely
Jan 28, 12:55 PM
Drink lots and lots of water
I already do.... it's my beverage of choice throughout the day.:)
I'm only adding 5 g of creatine (1 teaspoon) to the drink.....
I already do.... it's my beverage of choice throughout the day.:)
I'm only adding 5 g of creatine (1 teaspoon) to the drink.....
Psilocybin
Apr 19, 07:47 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Welcome!
CPU and GPU are both important. There is one critical difference between CPU and GPU though and thats this:
A user can usually wait on on the CPU with no impact other than the fact that they had to wait. Using your example. You waited 40 minutes. A CPU that that was twice as fast might have reduced your wait to 25 minutes. A CPU that was half a fast would have increased your wait time to maybe 75 minutes. The only consequence of CPU speed is time in general. There is rarely a difference in the final product.
GPU is different, GPU is often used to perform realtime calculations (Game or movie frames). Because the frames are related to a specific point in time, a difference is GPU performance can make the difference between usable and unusable. For that reason, people that like, want or need GPU performance tend to be focal.
In my experience, poor GPU performance bugs me more than poor CPU performance. You can't just wait for the GPU to get done, like you can with a CPU. There does have to be a balance though.
Well said
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Welcome!
CPU and GPU are both important. There is one critical difference between CPU and GPU though and thats this:
A user can usually wait on on the CPU with no impact other than the fact that they had to wait. Using your example. You waited 40 minutes. A CPU that that was twice as fast might have reduced your wait to 25 minutes. A CPU that was half a fast would have increased your wait time to maybe 75 minutes. The only consequence of CPU speed is time in general. There is rarely a difference in the final product.
GPU is different, GPU is often used to perform realtime calculations (Game or movie frames). Because the frames are related to a specific point in time, a difference is GPU performance can make the difference between usable and unusable. For that reason, people that like, want or need GPU performance tend to be focal.
In my experience, poor GPU performance bugs me more than poor CPU performance. You can't just wait for the GPU to get done, like you can with a CPU. There does have to be a balance though.
Well said
more...
twoodcc
Nov 3, 11:37 AM
too bad not everyone can get the beta
appleguy
Aug 18, 07:05 PM
No, that's the opposite of what I was after, that's the bug it has now. Sigh, this is exactly what I predicted, they added a bunch of new features but haven't fixed any of the major usability bugs and flaws it already has. Why does apple show iCal such contempt?
what are you after then?
what are you after then?
more...
afireintonto
Apr 22, 03:19 PM
Long hair don't care. I'm keeping the iPhone 4 until my contract is up in 2012:)
Snowy_River
Jul 12, 01:07 AM
At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough...
Hmm... Let's start with the idea of present value. $79 spent a year from now isn't worth $79 today. So, $79 a year for the next five years is actually only worth $300-$361 (assuming a possible APR of between 3% and 10%). Now, that's compared with $399.95 for Office. Hmm. But there's another factor here. If a given upgrade doesn't have any features that are compelling to you, you don't have to get it. Wow! That would mean that iWork would be even less!
Now, all of that being said, of course if iWork isn't functional for you now you shouldn't get it. But if it is, as this thread has shown that there are a lot of us out here for whom it, in fact, is, then there's no reason for us not to get it. So, all around, I'd argue that iWork is a cost savings over MS Office, even if you upgrade every time.
Plus, if all you need to make it a worthwhile office suite is a spreadsheet, then there are a variety of options at various price points. These include OpenOffice Calc, KOffice KSpread (both free), Mariner Calc, etc.
Hmm... Let's start with the idea of present value. $79 spent a year from now isn't worth $79 today. So, $79 a year for the next five years is actually only worth $300-$361 (assuming a possible APR of between 3% and 10%). Now, that's compared with $399.95 for Office. Hmm. But there's another factor here. If a given upgrade doesn't have any features that are compelling to you, you don't have to get it. Wow! That would mean that iWork would be even less!
Now, all of that being said, of course if iWork isn't functional for you now you shouldn't get it. But if it is, as this thread has shown that there are a lot of us out here for whom it, in fact, is, then there's no reason for us not to get it. So, all around, I'd argue that iWork is a cost savings over MS Office, even if you upgrade every time.
Plus, if all you need to make it a worthwhile office suite is a spreadsheet, then there are a variety of options at various price points. These include OpenOffice Calc, KOffice KSpread (both free), Mariner Calc, etc.
more...
2 Replies
Apr 14, 03:01 PM
Being a non-jetsetting 3gs user, this isn't really worth it for me. Maybe I'll get it sometime, but no rush here. :-p
But seeing that it "Contains the latest security updates"...
It would really be nice if small patches and updates like that were distributed through the iOS app store.
OTA updates would be a GOOD thing.
(Especially since Apple store employees are known for insisting iPhone users and iPad users don't necessarily NEED a computer. :-/ )
But seeing that it "Contains the latest security updates"...
It would really be nice if small patches and updates like that were distributed through the iOS app store.
OTA updates would be a GOOD thing.
(Especially since Apple store employees are known for insisting iPhone users and iPad users don't necessarily NEED a computer. :-/ )
bimboles
Oct 24, 09:04 AM
Does anyone know if they are available from today in the retail stores?
more...
sam10685
Jul 28, 10:47 AM
I hate the name Zune.
it reminds me of the month June, but with a Z instead. no way is M$ going to come up with a product that even remotely rivals the iPod.
it reminds me of the month June, but with a Z instead. no way is M$ going to come up with a product that even remotely rivals the iPod.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:29 AM
wireless (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Wi-Max whatever)? I used to think that this was a cool thing to have in an iPod. an iPod with internet radio capability sounds like a really cool idea. I'm lukewarm about now.
I'm not. What would I like to see from Apple? What would my ideal iPod be like? Let's explore the possibilities.
Bluetooth-headphones. This would kick ass. No more wires that get tangled up. And it CAN be done!
Large touch-screen. No separate controls, the controls would be right in the display (like in the image that was linked before in this thread).
And before you say "but there would be fingerprints on the screen! And it wouldn't provide any tactile feedback!". Ah, but how about that "no-touch" controls that have been rumored? I have no idea that is it really possible, but what if? You could simply hover you finger 1cm from the screen and use the controls. No fingerprints. As to the tactile feedback.... Tactile feedback is used that you know where the controls are without actually looking at the screen. "No-touch" UI does not have this, because you aren't actually touching anything. So how do we make this work? Well, what if you could just put your finger close to the screen ANYWHERE on the screen. If you do circlular motion (like in current iPod) the device would scroll, adjust volume, and do the other things you can do on the current iPod. If you move your finger straigh up, it would be equivaltnof clicking "menu". Straight down would be play/pause and so forth.
As to WLAN and the like.... What if the new iPod could be tied to iChat? You could VOIP to/from the iPod. just turn on the wireless, and browse to the "buddy list" menu on your iPod, and you are all set. Hell, the iPod could have a camera as well! if they can put video-cameras on phones, is there any reason why iPod couldn't have one?
if we assume that the "no-touch" UI is possible, then nothing I have listed is impossible. iPod with those specs would be YEARS ahead of any other device on the market! It would absolutely embarrass all the other devices.
I'm not. What would I like to see from Apple? What would my ideal iPod be like? Let's explore the possibilities.
Bluetooth-headphones. This would kick ass. No more wires that get tangled up. And it CAN be done!
Large touch-screen. No separate controls, the controls would be right in the display (like in the image that was linked before in this thread).
And before you say "but there would be fingerprints on the screen! And it wouldn't provide any tactile feedback!". Ah, but how about that "no-touch" controls that have been rumored? I have no idea that is it really possible, but what if? You could simply hover you finger 1cm from the screen and use the controls. No fingerprints. As to the tactile feedback.... Tactile feedback is used that you know where the controls are without actually looking at the screen. "No-touch" UI does not have this, because you aren't actually touching anything. So how do we make this work? Well, what if you could just put your finger close to the screen ANYWHERE on the screen. If you do circlular motion (like in current iPod) the device would scroll, adjust volume, and do the other things you can do on the current iPod. If you move your finger straigh up, it would be equivaltnof clicking "menu". Straight down would be play/pause and so forth.
As to WLAN and the like.... What if the new iPod could be tied to iChat? You could VOIP to/from the iPod. just turn on the wireless, and browse to the "buddy list" menu on your iPod, and you are all set. Hell, the iPod could have a camera as well! if they can put video-cameras on phones, is there any reason why iPod couldn't have one?
if we assume that the "no-touch" UI is possible, then nothing I have listed is impossible. iPod with those specs would be YEARS ahead of any other device on the market! It would absolutely embarrass all the other devices.
61132
Jul 25, 09:21 AM
ordered mine, the regular mm will go to another computer in the house.
Should be here around aug 8th :)
Should be here around aug 8th :)
wordoflife
Oct 20, 09:52 PM
To be honest, I kind of have everything I want. (mainly my Mac and phone). I think for Christmas I would like a few hundred bucks (just incase I wanted to buy something) and certainly a new watch, which I might end up buying myself before then.
EricNau
Apr 27, 06:18 PM
Moderator Note
It's been brought to our attention that the Rules for Appropriate Debate (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Rules_for_Appropriate_Debate) have not been followed in this thread. The level of discourse does not meet our expectations. Users need to be respectful of all other users, regardless of personal opinions.
Many users have spent a great deal of time defending their ideals, in response to posts that we'd have to remove under the rules, so we've decided to issue this reminder, leave the previous posts as they are, and ask your cooperation both in following the rules and in reporting posts that do not. Thank you.
It's been brought to our attention that the Rules for Appropriate Debate (http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Rules_for_Appropriate_Debate) have not been followed in this thread. The level of discourse does not meet our expectations. Users need to be respectful of all other users, regardless of personal opinions.
Many users have spent a great deal of time defending their ideals, in response to posts that we'd have to remove under the rules, so we've decided to issue this reminder, leave the previous posts as they are, and ask your cooperation both in following the rules and in reporting posts that do not. Thank you.
tbrinkma
Apr 28, 01:01 PM
All boats except Symbian (it's too huge a s[t]inking ship to be lifted by any tide) and Windows Phone 7 ( they made a paper boat in the hope of getting lifted but sadly it looks like the tide is too big for it to ride)
Ok, sure. There's exceptions for boats which have been so neglected they're keels have rusted out (Symbian), and boats with cast-lead structural members (WinP7)... :p
Ok, sure. There's exceptions for boats which have been so neglected they're keels have rusted out (Symbian), and boats with cast-lead structural members (WinP7)... :p
damage00
Oct 1, 11:19 AM
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
That's like saying:
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of freeways is unworkable. You think traffic is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no pavement at all.
There has to be an entirely new form of transportation for this, or the use of maglev or star trek transporters instead of silly roads. C'mon Toyota (maker of the Prius), solve this problem.
I'm not picking on you, carlgo. I'm saying, what you suggest is a little like throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.
Cell works, and has been working since the mid-80's and trillions of calls have been successfully placed. Apple didn't design it so they don't get the credit or the blame -- all they did was bring a new gadget to market. It's not the tech that is bad, it's the implementation that is at fault.
And it's AT&T's implementation that is to blame -- because it is cheap. Take a look at their stock price since the iPhone was introduced. They *want* $100 bucks every month from every customer in the US, but they aren't willing to reinvest enough of that into an infrastructure to support the number of customers they negotiated for.
Corporations tend establish ad campaigns to counter bad press or customer concerns/complaints, not what they do well. For instance, AT&T has the iPhone and no one else does. That's good. You would think they want to tell the world about that. No. It runs television spots for their Samsung/LG/etc. but not the iPhone.
On the other hand, AT&T has lousy coverage. Just look at your bars in SFO or NYC or even most of New Mexico -- doesn't matter where -- that's not a bandwidth issue. It's coverage. That's bad, so they advertise "more bars in more areas". These ads usually play on emotions, like two young lovers being separated, or they borrow on another organizations goodwill, like a company that gives shoes to the poor. They do not use demonstration or facts, because there aren't any. When I see these, I interpret them as the corporation's admission there is a problem.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
That's like saying:
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of freeways is unworkable. You think traffic is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no pavement at all.
There has to be an entirely new form of transportation for this, or the use of maglev or star trek transporters instead of silly roads. C'mon Toyota (maker of the Prius), solve this problem.
I'm not picking on you, carlgo. I'm saying, what you suggest is a little like throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.
Cell works, and has been working since the mid-80's and trillions of calls have been successfully placed. Apple didn't design it so they don't get the credit or the blame -- all they did was bring a new gadget to market. It's not the tech that is bad, it's the implementation that is at fault.
And it's AT&T's implementation that is to blame -- because it is cheap. Take a look at their stock price since the iPhone was introduced. They *want* $100 bucks every month from every customer in the US, but they aren't willing to reinvest enough of that into an infrastructure to support the number of customers they negotiated for.
Corporations tend establish ad campaigns to counter bad press or customer concerns/complaints, not what they do well. For instance, AT&T has the iPhone and no one else does. That's good. You would think they want to tell the world about that. No. It runs television spots for their Samsung/LG/etc. but not the iPhone.
On the other hand, AT&T has lousy coverage. Just look at your bars in SFO or NYC or even most of New Mexico -- doesn't matter where -- that's not a bandwidth issue. It's coverage. That's bad, so they advertise "more bars in more areas". These ads usually play on emotions, like two young lovers being separated, or they borrow on another organizations goodwill, like a company that gives shoes to the poor. They do not use demonstration or facts, because there aren't any. When I see these, I interpret them as the corporation's admission there is a problem.
Schtumple
Jul 14, 02:56 PM
Lol
See below :p
Are we keeping this thread up forever, yesterdays news, pull it!:cool:
See below :p
Are we keeping this thread up forever, yesterdays news, pull it!:cool:
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario