caspersoong
May 6, 01:08 AM
This seems great. Hope ARM comes with a super-fast APU for computers before long.
kgtenacious
Mar 30, 09:07 AM
Apple would block it because it gives preference to Amazon's MP3 store over iTunes. No point in even trying. Just wait, MobileMe revamp will make all of us happy.
MobileMe may be revamped, but the price will be higher - just to match Apple's image.
MobileMe may be revamped, but the price will be higher - just to match Apple's image.
Thunderhawks
Apr 24, 09:13 PM
Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
This is for a development in the future and the cost may not go up.
Apple usually outwaits developments until the cost fall into their range.
BTW: I do find it funny that you want to fault Apple for "gaming" a field that they clearly did not want to be in.
BTW2: The iMac for the masses is a clever space saving design. Their sales success shows it!
The Pro type tower boxes with separate monitor are just big clunky boxes.
They take up desk space or are usually hidden under the desk.
Also, in any good design Form follows Function. Apple follows that principle well and then some.
The secret of excellent design is actually what is not there:-)
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
This is for a development in the future and the cost may not go up.
Apple usually outwaits developments until the cost fall into their range.
BTW: I do find it funny that you want to fault Apple for "gaming" a field that they clearly did not want to be in.
BTW2: The iMac for the masses is a clever space saving design. Their sales success shows it!
The Pro type tower boxes with separate monitor are just big clunky boxes.
They take up desk space or are usually hidden under the desk.
Also, in any good design Form follows Function. Apple follows that principle well and then some.
The secret of excellent design is actually what is not there:-)
CaptainValor
Jul 22, 10:01 AM
Don't get too pumped up about this, everyone. The guys on TWIT were discussing these new Intel chips the other day and the indication from the first evaluation models is that the Mobile is not as much of a leap in performance over the previous generation as the new Desktop Core 2 Duo. I just bought a MBP 2ghz a month ago and as long as the rest of specs remain relatively unchanged, I'll stay happy with this model. :)
ChickenSwartz
Sep 16, 11:35 AM
Thats some optimistic reading mister. Not VERY reliable, just reliable. And the report is not connected to the newest rumor, it's something they heard about earlier this year and they're unable to confirm that it applies to the 25th. Oh well, maybe you read another article than me?
You are right, they have no evidence to point to the event on the 25th. The 12in was reported by them in MARCH say "we may expect this new Mac Book Pro to arrive late in the second quarter of this year." That hasn't happened. I think they have already f-ed up this lead and are re-reporting it with the slim hope that it will happen.
You are right, they have no evidence to point to the event on the 25th. The 12in was reported by them in MARCH say "we may expect this new Mac Book Pro to arrive late in the second quarter of this year." That hasn't happened. I think they have already f-ed up this lead and are re-reporting it with the slim hope that it will happen.
MUBiomed
Mar 30, 07:49 PM
I have a 2011 MBP in the sig. Is it stable enough to use now? What does it mean that videos in itunes wont work? Only purchased I assume, but purchased music will work?
bella92108
Apr 5, 02:18 PM
Could care less either way. Although I'd love Apple to give us more ways to customize our screens for iOS devices, Apple has always protected their UI... it's that consistency that makes Apple devices so clean and easy.
The expression is "couldn't care less" by the way.
The expression is "couldn't care less" by the way.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 02:03 PM
However, ati does list the 6990 as having a maximum display resolution of 2650 x 1600 per display though it can handle up to 6 displays. There will have to be a change somewhere. (Though you could probably write a program that would allow this resolution). That is still going to max out thunderbolt so you would not be able to drive one of those displays at native with a macbook pro.
Pretty sure again that the limitation is purely a "spec sheet" limitation given that is the max current LCDs do. My GF's miniDVI Macbook has a maximum "spec sheet" resolution of 1920x1200 yet she's plugged into a Dell SP2343W with a native resolution 2048x1156 with no problem. That resolution doesn't even show up on the "spec sheet" but it works fine in practice.
If the hardware really can't push more than 2560x1600 per connection, than since it can handle up to 6 displays of that resolution, I'm pretty sure it's just a firmware update away from enabling higher resolutions over DP 1.2. Again, maybe just something AMD overlooked because of the lack of such displays on the market.
Time will tell, but all the components available today can do it. We're at the point where we are ready to break beyond the 2560x1600 wall for a single monitor.
Now Thunderbolt is indeed a wild card here. Why would Apple limit DP like that though ? I'm betting that in DP mode, if they do implement DP 1.2, you would be able to use the full 21.6 Mbps. Otherwise, it makes no sense...
Pretty sure again that the limitation is purely a "spec sheet" limitation given that is the max current LCDs do. My GF's miniDVI Macbook has a maximum "spec sheet" resolution of 1920x1200 yet she's plugged into a Dell SP2343W with a native resolution 2048x1156 with no problem. That resolution doesn't even show up on the "spec sheet" but it works fine in practice.
If the hardware really can't push more than 2560x1600 per connection, than since it can handle up to 6 displays of that resolution, I'm pretty sure it's just a firmware update away from enabling higher resolutions over DP 1.2. Again, maybe just something AMD overlooked because of the lack of such displays on the market.
Time will tell, but all the components available today can do it. We're at the point where we are ready to break beyond the 2560x1600 wall for a single monitor.
Now Thunderbolt is indeed a wild card here. Why would Apple limit DP like that though ? I'm betting that in DP mode, if they do implement DP 1.2, you would be able to use the full 21.6 Mbps. Otherwise, it makes no sense...
Evangelion
Sep 11, 09:55 AM
It is excellent that you can play movies it on an iPod, but I hardly think that is enough to launch "screenplay". Most people want to see a movie on a large screen, not a computer or an iPod.
Is there any reason why you couldn't do both?
Is there any reason why you couldn't do both?
Manic Mouse
Sep 11, 08:51 AM
I really think they should have a seperate app for the movies/tv shows, or rename and overhaul iTunes. Making things too complicated and hard to use is something Apple strives against and by incorperating too much functionality into a MUSIC player will make it hard to use and confusing for customers. iTunes, strangely, should be for "tunes". It makes no sense, at least from the name, to think that there would be movies/tv shows in there.
Why not take the DVD-player app in OSX and turn that into the new TV show/Movie player (as well as DVDs) while iTunes plays MP3/CDs. That makes much more sense. You should also be able to rip DVD's though this new app as you would CDs in iTunes.
Why not take the DVD-player app in OSX and turn that into the new TV show/Movie player (as well as DVDs) while iTunes plays MP3/CDs. That makes much more sense. You should also be able to rip DVD's though this new app as you would CDs in iTunes.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 10, 09:26 AM
am�big�u�ous/amˈbigyo͞oəs/Adjective
1. (of language) Open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
2. Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
The problem may be confusing to some; it certainly is not ambiguous. There are rules in math, if you follow them, there is only one answer. Period.
1. (of language) Open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
2. Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
The problem may be confusing to some; it certainly is not ambiguous. There are rules in math, if you follow them, there is only one answer. Period.
2ndPath
Aug 4, 03:49 AM
Wasn't there a decent price difference between the PB 12" and the 15" but had the same processor? I have no idea. I'm really just asking because i'm curious.
Yes, but the difference in price has been smaller. But then there is no 12" or 13" MBP available and the 15" have additional differences, which could justify a price difference.
I guess they will introduce Meroms a bit later into the MacBooks, but not too long after the MacBook Pros (unlike the iBooks which got the G4 about 2 years after the Powerbooks).
Yes, but the difference in price has been smaller. But then there is no 12" or 13" MBP available and the 15" have additional differences, which could justify a price difference.
I guess they will introduce Meroms a bit later into the MacBooks, but not too long after the MacBook Pros (unlike the iBooks which got the G4 about 2 years after the Powerbooks).
SteveRichardson
Aug 7, 02:58 PM
Yea okay so I'm leaving for Chicago on the 22nd of this month for school and I really wanted to get a MBP with merom before then.
boooo I'll have to settle for the current chips, which I'm sure are great anyway.
boooo I'll have to settle for the current chips, which I'm sure are great anyway.
DakotaGuy
Aug 7, 02:43 PM
First of all...it seems to me they should have offered a single dual core processor model...like a single 2.6Ghz model for something like $1599. Second why do you only save $300 when you opt for the 2Ghz model but the 3Ghz model costs $800 more???
This machine would be complete overkill for me, still it is fun to see what it will do. There is a huge gap in their line up between the iMac and Mac Pro now.
This machine would be complete overkill for me, still it is fun to see what it will do. There is a huge gap in their line up between the iMac and Mac Pro now.
SuperCachetes
May 3, 09:28 PM
Yes, it's a system that has its roots in the past, but the system still works. There's no compelling reason to change it. There's no efficiency to be gained.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
Howdr
Apr 5, 05:17 PM
Honestly this whole thing PO's me to no end,
How Dare Apple!
Apple is now showcasing their stupid annoying IADS,
did you know Apple has plans to make their next OS for Mac make you have these Ads too, you will pay less ( but still buy the updated OS) but to "Subsidize" it you will suffer ADs............ Yeah Apple is Greaaaaaaaat :eek:
How Dare Apple!
Apple is now showcasing their stupid annoying IADS,
did you know Apple has plans to make their next OS for Mac make you have these Ads too, you will pay less ( but still buy the updated OS) but to "Subsidize" it you will suffer ADs............ Yeah Apple is Greaaaaaaaat :eek:
MacFly123
Mar 30, 04:06 AM
No offense taken, but seriously how is the web interface to my digital locker so offensive?
screenshot (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5571848363_7544628f92_b.jpg).
Not that I'd normally be accessing my media via a desktop website. That's why Amazon also offer a nice and visually friendly (https://ssl.gstatic.com/android/market/com.amazon.mp3/ss-1-320-480-160-2-251c9c92d6a55c8108001da1d17520acb8db9c80) app for your mobile devices :).
I'm not going to give a full critique to Amazon's UI and UX design, but when you look at Apple's UIs and Apple's apps next to these Amazon one's do you not notice a major difference in simplicity, fit and finish, and polish???
I'm not saying you can't use the Amazon stuff, but Apple has powerfully demonstrated many times over now for years, that user experience and beautiful design ABSOLUTELY DOES make a big impact!
Take a look at the UI of iBooks, or the new iMovie and Garage Band, or Contacts, or all of the iWork apps on iPad, etc. etc. BEAUTIFUL UIs and very creative, cultural, simplistic and elegant! Also WebOS has some beautiful UI design.
screenshot (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5571848363_7544628f92_b.jpg).
Not that I'd normally be accessing my media via a desktop website. That's why Amazon also offer a nice and visually friendly (https://ssl.gstatic.com/android/market/com.amazon.mp3/ss-1-320-480-160-2-251c9c92d6a55c8108001da1d17520acb8db9c80) app for your mobile devices :).
I'm not going to give a full critique to Amazon's UI and UX design, but when you look at Apple's UIs and Apple's apps next to these Amazon one's do you not notice a major difference in simplicity, fit and finish, and polish???
I'm not saying you can't use the Amazon stuff, but Apple has powerfully demonstrated many times over now for years, that user experience and beautiful design ABSOLUTELY DOES make a big impact!
Take a look at the UI of iBooks, or the new iMovie and Garage Band, or Contacts, or all of the iWork apps on iPad, etc. etc. BEAUTIFUL UIs and very creative, cultural, simplistic and elegant! Also WebOS has some beautiful UI design.
milo
Sep 11, 10:02 AM
My Motorola set-top box already has the killer app that everyone wants to see from a IP-streaming device: HD movies on demand for $4 a pop.
Doesn't that require having cable TV?
No, but they're not playing games with my rather fragile heart =(
I don't see how announcing something but not shipping it is better than not announcing something and not shipping it. Either way, you have no computer. Threatening to buy a dell is pretty empty until Dell actually makes that possible.
Doesn't that require having cable TV?
No, but they're not playing games with my rather fragile heart =(
I don't see how announcing something but not shipping it is better than not announcing something and not shipping it. Either way, you have no computer. Threatening to buy a dell is pretty empty until Dell actually makes that possible.
EricNau
May 3, 01:34 AM
I don't think so, and I'm not being sarcastic.
Temperature is a great example. Celsius and Kelvin are fantastic for science and engineering for obvious reasons, but when it comes to everyday uses, Fahrenheit makes more sense. It's very intuitive to think of numbers on a 100 scale. That's why when you're looking at the weather or taking someone's body temperature, it's easier to get a grasp of what is "high" or "low." Fahrenheit is also more accurate for casual uses because it can express smaller changes more easily than Celsius.
I think I have to disagree. It may be easier for Americans to grasp the "highs" and "lows" of the Fahrenheit scale, but any European would have a different concept of high and low. Also, the difference in Celsius units is rather insignificant. For example, the difference between 37 and 38 degrees Celsius is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, hardly a noticeable difference when it comes to weather forecasts.
The metric system also lacks easy naming schemes for everyday sizes. Recipes, for example, would have to be written out in ml rather than cups or spoons. In such a situation, base 10 is not helpful at all because recipes are rarely divided or multiplied by 10. The metric system could in fact be worse for such applications because cutting 473 ml in half is more of a pain than cutting 2 cups in half (and yes, while recipes could theoretically be modified to be in flat metric ratios, the fact is that there are far too many recipes in existence already for that to be realistic in the short-medium term).
I'm not so sure. If a recipe calls for 2 tablespoons, is it not just as easy to measure out 30ml? Might using one graduated measuring "cup" be easier than a series of various-sized spoons and cups? For dry goods, grams are easily measured on a scale. With practice and experience, it's quicker and more precise than measuring exactly three cups of leveled flour: you can just sift the flour into your mixing bowl until the scale reads 375 grams. Indeed this method uses less dishes, too.
Are there really any benefits to the Customary scale, or do we just perceive benefits because it's what we're used to? And if the latter is the case, why make American students learn two systems of units when one fulfills all needs?
Temperature is a great example. Celsius and Kelvin are fantastic for science and engineering for obvious reasons, but when it comes to everyday uses, Fahrenheit makes more sense. It's very intuitive to think of numbers on a 100 scale. That's why when you're looking at the weather or taking someone's body temperature, it's easier to get a grasp of what is "high" or "low." Fahrenheit is also more accurate for casual uses because it can express smaller changes more easily than Celsius.
I think I have to disagree. It may be easier for Americans to grasp the "highs" and "lows" of the Fahrenheit scale, but any European would have a different concept of high and low. Also, the difference in Celsius units is rather insignificant. For example, the difference between 37 and 38 degrees Celsius is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, hardly a noticeable difference when it comes to weather forecasts.
The metric system also lacks easy naming schemes for everyday sizes. Recipes, for example, would have to be written out in ml rather than cups or spoons. In such a situation, base 10 is not helpful at all because recipes are rarely divided or multiplied by 10. The metric system could in fact be worse for such applications because cutting 473 ml in half is more of a pain than cutting 2 cups in half (and yes, while recipes could theoretically be modified to be in flat metric ratios, the fact is that there are far too many recipes in existence already for that to be realistic in the short-medium term).
I'm not so sure. If a recipe calls for 2 tablespoons, is it not just as easy to measure out 30ml? Might using one graduated measuring "cup" be easier than a series of various-sized spoons and cups? For dry goods, grams are easily measured on a scale. With practice and experience, it's quicker and more precise than measuring exactly three cups of leveled flour: you can just sift the flour into your mixing bowl until the scale reads 375 grams. Indeed this method uses less dishes, too.
Are there really any benefits to the Customary scale, or do we just perceive benefits because it's what we're used to? And if the latter is the case, why make American students learn two systems of units when one fulfills all needs?
regandarcy
Mar 27, 06:52 AM
I'm all for cloud computing as an added feature....but not as a replacement for traditional storage of media and data.
I mean, I hope Apple doesn't force people to be connected to the cloud. I think that would be a mistake. Mainly because it would force you to either have access to a wifi signal, or pay for an expensive data plan just to gain access to your media.
As it is, all the telecom companies are dropping their unlimited plans and switching to tiered pricing. I think this creates a problem for the user to freely use their content without constant fear of exceeding their data plans.
And what of people with iPod touches or wifi only ipads...who are not within range of a wifi signal....and cannot access their content as a result. That would be very frustrating and limiting. It would make their devices nothing more than expensive paper weights.
It also creates a problem for those with 3G ipads or iPhones trying to access large video or media files in their cloud I think. I mean have you ever tried to watch a YouTube video over 3G? It SUCKS! So you'd be using up tons of bandwidth on a tiered data plan for crappy quality. How is that good?
And if the iPhone 5 is the first apple device to use 4G speeds....won't that eat up even more bandwidth? Running an even greater risk of you going over your limit and being charged outrageous fees by your service provider? Be it ATT or Verizon?
I understand that the concept of the cloud is freedom at it's core....the ability to have access to your media across multiple devices without having to store it on just one...but then you become a slave to the telecom companies and their tiered data plans...thus defeating that freedom.
Plus it forces you to chose a 3G iPad or put 3G into iPod touches to make it useful.
So I get it, and I don't get it.
The original concept of the iPod was to be able to carry all your music with you. Total freedom. And that's what helped make it such a huge success. Then came the iPhone and iPad. Both equally cool for music and video. You could store all your data on them and listen or watch them at your leisure on the go.
But if you then force people to store their data on a cloud...and pay for an expensive tiered data plan to access that data...to me it becomes not so free anymore. In fact, it becomes downright restrictive and suffocating IMHO.
As long as Apple doesn't abandon the ability to store your media ON your device, I'm cool with this move. The cloud would just become an added bonus which you could use or not use at your discretion.
I just think having to be connected to the cloud via wifi or 3G to access your data is kind of annoying....not to mention potentially EXPENSIVE!
Once in awhile...ok. But not as ones main means of access. I much rather have the bulk of my music and data actually stored ON my device. Much more convenient if you ask me.
Flash drives are big enough to carry most if not all the music and video you need. Why store it all on apple servers on some big farm in North Carolina that you need to be connected to wifi or an expensive tiered data plan just to access it? Don't see the point.
Is it just me? :-)
I mean, I hope Apple doesn't force people to be connected to the cloud. I think that would be a mistake. Mainly because it would force you to either have access to a wifi signal, or pay for an expensive data plan just to gain access to your media.
As it is, all the telecom companies are dropping their unlimited plans and switching to tiered pricing. I think this creates a problem for the user to freely use their content without constant fear of exceeding their data plans.
And what of people with iPod touches or wifi only ipads...who are not within range of a wifi signal....and cannot access their content as a result. That would be very frustrating and limiting. It would make their devices nothing more than expensive paper weights.
It also creates a problem for those with 3G ipads or iPhones trying to access large video or media files in their cloud I think. I mean have you ever tried to watch a YouTube video over 3G? It SUCKS! So you'd be using up tons of bandwidth on a tiered data plan for crappy quality. How is that good?
And if the iPhone 5 is the first apple device to use 4G speeds....won't that eat up even more bandwidth? Running an even greater risk of you going over your limit and being charged outrageous fees by your service provider? Be it ATT or Verizon?
I understand that the concept of the cloud is freedom at it's core....the ability to have access to your media across multiple devices without having to store it on just one...but then you become a slave to the telecom companies and their tiered data plans...thus defeating that freedom.
Plus it forces you to chose a 3G iPad or put 3G into iPod touches to make it useful.
So I get it, and I don't get it.
The original concept of the iPod was to be able to carry all your music with you. Total freedom. And that's what helped make it such a huge success. Then came the iPhone and iPad. Both equally cool for music and video. You could store all your data on them and listen or watch them at your leisure on the go.
But if you then force people to store their data on a cloud...and pay for an expensive tiered data plan to access that data...to me it becomes not so free anymore. In fact, it becomes downright restrictive and suffocating IMHO.
As long as Apple doesn't abandon the ability to store your media ON your device, I'm cool with this move. The cloud would just become an added bonus which you could use or not use at your discretion.
I just think having to be connected to the cloud via wifi or 3G to access your data is kind of annoying....not to mention potentially EXPENSIVE!
Once in awhile...ok. But not as ones main means of access. I much rather have the bulk of my music and data actually stored ON my device. Much more convenient if you ask me.
Flash drives are big enough to carry most if not all the music and video you need. Why store it all on apple servers on some big farm in North Carolina that you need to be connected to wifi or an expensive tiered data plan just to access it? Don't see the point.
Is it just me? :-)
hayesk
Nov 25, 09:34 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
tigress666
Apr 25, 11:45 AM
The issue is more being concerned about those in abusive relationships and the like. You definitely don't want a physically abusive spouse to have access to your location information.
Wow, some one who pointed out a realistic, not paranoid theory, reason why this is not a good thing (not that I don't think some people being paranoid have a point. But I also think this scenario is a much more likely to happen reason why the info being stored on the phone unencrypted is a bad thing).
1. Apple is not tracking you until they actually make the phone send them that info.The info stays on your phone and your computer so you have control over it (well as long as it doesn't get into some one else's hands). I don't even know why this is being discussed since it's not happening.
2. I think the bigger problem is that the phone doesn't erase this info after a while and it doesn't encrypt it which makes it easier if some one takes your phone to get that info. Leaving it to issues of if people (criminals, abusive spouses, the government) steal your phone or force the info off. It makes it that much easier to them and that much more available.
Wow, some one who pointed out a realistic, not paranoid theory, reason why this is not a good thing (not that I don't think some people being paranoid have a point. But I also think this scenario is a much more likely to happen reason why the info being stored on the phone unencrypted is a bad thing).
1. Apple is not tracking you until they actually make the phone send them that info.The info stays on your phone and your computer so you have control over it (well as long as it doesn't get into some one else's hands). I don't even know why this is being discussed since it's not happening.
2. I think the bigger problem is that the phone doesn't erase this info after a while and it doesn't encrypt it which makes it easier if some one takes your phone to get that info. Leaving it to issues of if people (criminals, abusive spouses, the government) steal your phone or force the info off. It makes it that much easier to them and that much more available.
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:26 PM
You seem really hung up on the fact that if Lion is sold on the app store it has to act exactly like every thing else on the app store, when that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.
I'm only "hung up" on that because that's what everything points to right now.
The current betas of Lion are simply DMGs with install files.
I'm only "hung up" on that because that's what everything points to right now.
The current betas of Lion are simply DMGs with install files.
JesterJJZ
Apr 21, 07:33 PM
I need:
8 Internal Bays.
More PCIe Slots.
Thunderbolt.
Keep Dual Optical Bays.
More Ram Slots.
Built in Fibre Channel (This is a stretch)
That should be a MacPro. What you guys want is that magic headless iMac. I want more, not less.
Working in Video I need the most horsepower possible. 32 Cores would be nice.
At home I can live with my iMac, but editing on it is a pain. A MiniMacPro might work there, but it will still cost 2k and people will bitch.
For work I can justify spending $8,000 on a high powered PRO machine.
What he said...
8 Internal Bays.
More PCIe Slots.
Thunderbolt.
Keep Dual Optical Bays.
More Ram Slots.
Built in Fibre Channel (This is a stretch)
That should be a MacPro. What you guys want is that magic headless iMac. I want more, not less.
Working in Video I need the most horsepower possible. 32 Cores would be nice.
At home I can live with my iMac, but editing on it is a pain. A MiniMacPro might work there, but it will still cost 2k and people will bitch.
For work I can justify spending $8,000 on a high powered PRO machine.
What he said...