mc68k
Dec 12, 12:51 AM
thanks! the points are coming faster these days. i guess they have to to keep up with you guys!
dr Dunkel
Apr 20, 02:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
It would have made sense if Apple would have built computers in the segment where the demand is for something more modular than the iMac but less OTT than the MP. As long as Apple is sticking both with that model and its head in the sand, it will seem strange...
It would have made sense if Apple would have built computers in the segment where the demand is for something more modular than the iMac but less OTT than the MP. As long as Apple is sticking both with that model and its head in the sand, it will seem strange...
aquajet
Sep 6, 09:54 AM
Is it just me, or does the $599 mini *not* let you configure it with a DVD burner?
You're right and that sucks. :(
You're right and that sucks. :(
_iCeb0x_
Jan 12, 11:36 AM
I figured out the secret air message!
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Sorry, you're wrong. Apples fall out of a tree.
Sir Isaac Newton was sitting under the tree and the damn Apple hit his head.
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Sorry, you're wrong. Apples fall out of a tree.
Sir Isaac Newton was sitting under the tree and the damn Apple hit his head.
vvebster
Nov 23, 10:58 PM
ROFL, tell me about it :D
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 29, 09:01 AM
But this IS Apple were talking about lol. Anyway the article doesnt mention which 1.66/1.83 chips they will use.
It says Core Duo. If we were talking about Merom, it would be Core 2 Duo.
It says Core Duo. If we were talking about Merom, it would be Core 2 Duo.
aswitcher
Jan 13, 01:44 PM
not to mention:
MacBook OZONE
MacBook CO (monoxide)
MacBook ARGON
MacBook METHANE
MacBook HYDROGEN
MacBook XENON
MacBook NEON
MacBook KRYPTON
I could go a MacBook Xenon (quad core) ;)
MacBook OZONE
MacBook CO (monoxide)
MacBook ARGON
MacBook METHANE
MacBook HYDROGEN
MacBook XENON
MacBook NEON
MacBook KRYPTON
I could go a MacBook Xenon (quad core) ;)
jmann
Apr 10, 12:21 AM
I've tried to drive a stickshift when I was test driving a car. It was interesting. I did okay at it. I've never driven it full time though.
ChazUK
Apr 26, 01:36 PM
!remember the widgets on your macs they are where the idea for the Apps on Iphones came from, Windows came along and stole the Widgets idea and initially called them Gadgets but now every other copycat calls them Widgets too, the same is happening again man it's bull, apple sue these leeches all of them.
My first experience with widgets was with Konfabulator on OS X 10.3. There may have been other examples before konfabulator but from my memory, Apple didn't invent widgets.
My first experience with widgets was with Konfabulator on OS X 10.3. There may have been other examples before konfabulator but from my memory, Apple didn't invent widgets.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 5, 04:34 PM
Do you have a clue what you're talking about? It's pretty well-known now that Consumer Reports framed the Suzuki Samurai to sell magazines and to tear down a Japanese company (and SUVs in general).
LOL. Yeah, sure they did. I suppose we didn't actually go to the moon either, eh? :p
You don't watch Fox "News", per chance do you? Or perhaps Mr. Limbaugh is your source of knowledge of the world? :D
I can tell you, I know a lot about a lot of things, and the things I know about, when I read Consumer Reports I am AMAZED at the sheer incompetence of their testing. At best, it's severely flawed, hearsay, and/or simply meaningless. At worst, it's severely biased.
Yes, I can tell from you post that you know a LOT about all kinds of things. :rolleyes:
LOL. Yeah, sure they did. I suppose we didn't actually go to the moon either, eh? :p
You don't watch Fox "News", per chance do you? Or perhaps Mr. Limbaugh is your source of knowledge of the world? :D
I can tell you, I know a lot about a lot of things, and the things I know about, when I read Consumer Reports I am AMAZED at the sheer incompetence of their testing. At best, it's severely flawed, hearsay, and/or simply meaningless. At worst, it's severely biased.
Yes, I can tell from you post that you know a LOT about all kinds of things. :rolleyes:
Apple 26.2
Apr 21, 08:07 PM
:apple: apologists unite!
MovieCutter
Apr 12, 09:19 PM
Well, welcome to the 21st century Apple...thank gods!
mkrishnan
Jan 1, 05:53 PM
Whatever happend to the thin macbook? That is all I wanted this year.
I don't think there's been any compelling evidence to support that, sadly. At least, several very seemingly viable component technologies, such as ULV C2D's, are not available yet.
For the iSight, too, no really compelling evidence of what the revised product would be, should there be one.
I don't think there's been any compelling evidence to support that, sadly. At least, several very seemingly viable component technologies, such as ULV C2D's, are not available yet.
For the iSight, too, no really compelling evidence of what the revised product would be, should there be one.
Flowbee
Sep 6, 08:05 PM
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod. Sure you can use the output from the dock to play it on your tv, but if you have a slightly big tv, it doesn't look DVD quality.
You don't need the dock, you can just use a cable (http://podophile.com/2006/08/16/watch-ipod-videos-on-your-tv/).
I have to believe that movie downloads will be higher quality than the current TV shows.
You don't need the dock, you can just use a cable (http://podophile.com/2006/08/16/watch-ipod-videos-on-your-tv/).
I have to believe that movie downloads will be higher quality than the current TV shows.
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 11:42 PM
WordPerfect Office X5?
You got me there. Here's a bit of interesting tech trademark trivia (Microsoft vs Lindows):
As early as a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
You got me there. Here's a bit of interesting tech trademark trivia (Microsoft vs Lindows):
As early as a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
Alpinism
Nov 16, 12:06 PM
An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.
Thats the beauty of going Intel, you dont drop the price ? DELL, HP and the other competitors WILL.
Thats the beauty of going Intel, you dont drop the price ? DELL, HP and the other competitors WILL.
SPUY767
Sep 7, 06:46 AM
Judging by the ratings, I get the sensation that some of us here don't like disney movies. Anyhow, Apple's not really trying to break into any new markets with this, nor are they trying to be revolutionary. They already have an incredibly robust content distribution system, and it costs them next to nothing to host these movies on it. If people download them, great, if not, so what. But seriously, for the price, these mofos better be Hi-Def!
Chris Bangle
Jan 7, 01:41 PM
Apple=30years ipod=5years website=10 years apprently... Any other momentous birthdays?
azentropy
Sep 15, 09:57 AM
And I would recommend the iPhone 4 to everyone I know, almost all of whom use a case no matter what phone they have.
Let's drop the car analogy, it's causing more trouble than my point is worth. Apple did not fix the issue YET, but they said they would. What would you have them do in the meantime? What would CR have them do? No doubt a product recall which would be silly overkill. Apple's solution is simple, free, and easy.
CR wants them to include a free case in the box at the time of purchase. Isn't that a MORE "simple, free, and easy" solution than what Apple did and are now doing away with? Apple's solution is no longer "simple, free and easy" after Sep. 30th. BTW - it took 7 weeks for me to receive my case.
Let's drop the car analogy, it's causing more trouble than my point is worth. Apple did not fix the issue YET, but they said they would. What would you have them do in the meantime? What would CR have them do? No doubt a product recall which would be silly overkill. Apple's solution is simple, free, and easy.
CR wants them to include a free case in the box at the time of purchase. Isn't that a MORE "simple, free, and easy" solution than what Apple did and are now doing away with? Apple's solution is no longer "simple, free and easy" after Sep. 30th. BTW - it took 7 weeks for me to receive my case.
bketchum
Sep 1, 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
cocky jeremy
Apr 2, 03:20 AM
AirDrop wasn't on Preview 1 for me. (2008 iMac, C2D) and is now showing up on Preview 2. This wasn't specific folder older models, i don't think. It appeared to be random, as far as the machines it did and didn't show up on. So i'm not sure about others..
thereubster
Oct 23, 10:52 AM
Its not going to happen yet. The Chipset to support it isn't yet available (till next year)
I'm picking Core 2 Duo (up to 2.33Ghz optional), FW800, new superdrives with DL support (or MAYBE Blu-ray option, they are available after all), New display options (higher rez), larger HD and thats it.
What I would like to see them add is eSATA support but I bet they dont.
I'm picking Core 2 Duo (up to 2.33Ghz optional), FW800, new superdrives with DL support (or MAYBE Blu-ray option, they are available after all), New display options (higher rez), larger HD and thats it.
What I would like to see them add is eSATA support but I bet they dont.
yac_moda
Jul 19, 07:00 PM
No - they are actually losing market share.
"-- 50% of buyers are new to Mac."
The way to compare is not from one quarter to the next, but 3rd quarter with 3rd quarter (Very seasonal buying by education scews all comp companies number this way.) -- SO THEY HAVE HAD A HUGE JUMP :eek:
But we will have to wait to see exactly how much.
"-- 50% of buyers are new to Mac."
The way to compare is not from one quarter to the next, but 3rd quarter with 3rd quarter (Very seasonal buying by education scews all comp companies number this way.) -- SO THEY HAVE HAD A HUGE JUMP :eek:
But we will have to wait to see exactly how much.
