JBytes
Apr 25, 10:08 AM
I've been reading MacRumors for years - only added to the discussion a few times since 08. Not a troll, but still considered a "newbie". :D
Wow, I just realised I've been on this forum for quite a while.
Wow, I just realised I've been on this forum for quite a while.
Gasu E.
Apr 25, 08:31 AM
Well, I think the previous commenter's point has some validity. A great example of this "form over function" is the iMac. Mobile graphics (and poor ones at that), horrendous thermal management, limited stand orientation...but one damn fine looking computer:D Dont get me wrong, Apple does amazing things with their products. (Im obviously a fan :D) But I do think design is paramount to their efforts (not that function ever takes backseat, it just can be slightly lessoned on some releases). Now, IMO...they knocked both form and function out of the park with the iPad 2, iPhone 4, and 2010 MBA. Bravo
I have to respectfully disagree. Having a large monitor in a small compact desktop form factor was important to me. I have very limited deskspace, even less floorspace, and a variety of needs for the large monitor. You may call this "form", but as far as I am concerned, this is "functionality", since a larger package forces me to make other compromise in my life.
I have to respectfully disagree. Having a large monitor in a small compact desktop form factor was important to me. I have very limited deskspace, even less floorspace, and a variety of needs for the large monitor. You may call this "form", but as far as I am concerned, this is "functionality", since a larger package forces me to make other compromise in my life.
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...
Modano
Apr 25, 08:59 AM
Let's say you write down everywhere you go in a notebook I gave you, which you keep in a desk at your house. Does that mean I'm tracking you? That's essentially what's happening here. It's just a better story to call it "tracking" and "spying."
Also, switching to a mobile OS made by an advertising company for privacy reasons is just absurd.
Also, switching to a mobile OS made by an advertising company for privacy reasons is just absurd.
jaxstate
Aug 4, 08:38 AM
How do you know this. Are you some type of design tester for intel?
What is really going to help merom on the Mac are the SSE units. It has three to yonah's one . Mac OS X makes a lot better use of SIMD units than windows.
The 400 series celerons aren't that slow. They're more or less a Core Solo with a smaller cache.
What is really going to help merom on the Mac are the SSE units. It has three to yonah's one . Mac OS X makes a lot better use of SIMD units than windows.
The 400 series celerons aren't that slow. They're more or less a Core Solo with a smaller cache.
ravenvii
May 3, 01:24 PM
is it possible for a fight to end with both monsters and heroes in the room? (this will depend on how you organize the HP/AP)
what happens next? another battle the next turn/round? can the heroes run? can the monster be re-located by the villain?
No. No. No.
can the healing treasure bring HP to be higher than the level (e.g, if i am level 3, with 1HP left, I am alone and I find the healing treasure, do i go to 3HP, to 6HP or is it like a flask that i can use in part and in part save/share later)?
No.
can the villain put traps in already explored rooms?
Yes.
would 'explore' also find secret doors if any?
Neat idea, but no. Maybe future games.
what happens next? another battle the next turn/round? can the heroes run? can the monster be re-located by the villain?
No. No. No.
can the healing treasure bring HP to be higher than the level (e.g, if i am level 3, with 1HP left, I am alone and I find the healing treasure, do i go to 3HP, to 6HP or is it like a flask that i can use in part and in part save/share later)?
No.
can the villain put traps in already explored rooms?
Yes.
would 'explore' also find secret doors if any?
Neat idea, but no. Maybe future games.
ftaok
Apr 7, 02:51 PM
I can say CONFIDENTLY that the war is NOT over. It's been what 2 years? No way. Apple may have the upper hand in the battle but has NOT won the war.
What I'm saying is that by the time Android or WebOS or QNX catch up to the iPad, Apple will already be onto the next big thing. Tablets will have peaked, and the weak players will have dropped out.
So instead of following Apple and forever having your products known as iPad killers, why not spend the money that you'd put into designing mediocre tablets into creating the next device? I'm sure that Sammy, Moto, RIM, etc all have some budget to develop the next generation of devices, but I think they need to spend a lot more on the R&D.
For instance, when netbooks were all the rage, everyone was demanding that Apple come up with their own netbook. For whatever reason, Apple wasn't (and still isn't) in the netbook market. Instead, they spent their energies (and money) developing the successor to the netbook. In hindsight, we should have all seen it coming. Jobs even said that Apple couldn't make a decent 'computer' for less than $500. Apple was busy creating the iPad to be that device that folks would shell out $500 for. Genius.
So instead of waging a long, drawn out war against Apple for a small slice of the tablet market, work on making the successor to the tablet.
What I'm saying is that by the time Android or WebOS or QNX catch up to the iPad, Apple will already be onto the next big thing. Tablets will have peaked, and the weak players will have dropped out.
So instead of following Apple and forever having your products known as iPad killers, why not spend the money that you'd put into designing mediocre tablets into creating the next device? I'm sure that Sammy, Moto, RIM, etc all have some budget to develop the next generation of devices, but I think they need to spend a lot more on the R&D.
For instance, when netbooks were all the rage, everyone was demanding that Apple come up with their own netbook. For whatever reason, Apple wasn't (and still isn't) in the netbook market. Instead, they spent their energies (and money) developing the successor to the netbook. In hindsight, we should have all seen it coming. Jobs even said that Apple couldn't make a decent 'computer' for less than $500. Apple was busy creating the iPad to be that device that folks would shell out $500 for. Genius.
So instead of waging a long, drawn out war against Apple for a small slice of the tablet market, work on making the successor to the tablet.
ikir
May 8, 12:48 AM
+1
My MobileMe email account didn't work all the time during my trial period, thankfully. Sometimes, I'd send an email from my MobileMe account and it wouldn't arrive at my receiving email account for like a day an a half.
Just too many bugs to justify the $99 price tag. :confused:
Never happened here, of course it could it is an email. Keep in mind that your receiving accounts could be the problem,
My MobileMe email account didn't work all the time during my trial period, thankfully. Sometimes, I'd send an email from my MobileMe account and it wouldn't arrive at my receiving email account for like a day an a half.
Just too many bugs to justify the $99 price tag. :confused:
Never happened here, of course it could it is an email. Keep in mind that your receiving accounts could be the problem,
Popeye206
Apr 7, 11:44 AM
Too funny. :rolleyes:
I love all the posts that say, "competition is good, keep Apple on its toes." Problem is, the competition is just copying what Apple has done. Who else is really innovating anything new? Who else has any sort of long term vision of where technology can take us? RIM, MS, HP? Doubtful. Google? All they want is to know everything about you to improve their ability to sell marketing information.
Apple making smart business decisions will only force others to rethink, innovate and create their own demand. Or die. Sorry if you don't like how the free market works.
Apple does learn from the competition... no doubt. And competition is always good. But, at the same time, Apple does seem to be the one that does something different and changes the game way more than the others.
I love all the posts that say, "competition is good, keep Apple on its toes." Problem is, the competition is just copying what Apple has done. Who else is really innovating anything new? Who else has any sort of long term vision of where technology can take us? RIM, MS, HP? Doubtful. Google? All they want is to know everything about you to improve their ability to sell marketing information.
Apple making smart business decisions will only force others to rethink, innovate and create their own demand. Or die. Sorry if you don't like how the free market works.
Apple does learn from the competition... no doubt. And competition is always good. But, at the same time, Apple does seem to be the one that does something different and changes the game way more than the others.
EricNau
May 3, 09:48 PM
I don't have the time to write an exhaustive response to this magnum opus, but I'm going to leave with a few concluding points:
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
huntson
Apr 21, 04:36 PM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/)
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/21/152122-mac_pro_2010_inside.jpg)
Inside Apple's current Mac Pro
According to 9 to 5 Mac, Apple is "toying with" a redesigned prototype (http://www.9to5mac.com/63107/prototype-next-gen-mac-pro-detailed-redesigned-rackable-stackable/) for its Mac Pro line, narrowing the design from its current 8.1-inch width to something slightly over 5 inches wide. Combined with a slight reduction in height to around 19 inches, the redesign would apparently allow the Mac Pro to be rackmountable in server cabinets as a 3U component.Apple of course used to offer its dedicated Xserve product line offering a thinner 1U component for rackmountable use, but the company discontinued the line (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-discontinues-xserve-only-available-until-january-31st/) as of January 31st of this year. The company has since introduced a new "server" configuration (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-releases-new-server-configuration-of-mac-pro-to-replace-xserve/) of the Mac Pro, but a redesign to accommodate both standard upright orientation and a sideways rackmounted one would likely be a welcome move for server fans despite the significant increase in rack space required.
The report claims that Apple has developed a "stacked" drive configuration utilizing sleds capable of handling two conventional or solid state hard drives apiece, increasing the density of drives in an attempt to squeeze all of the existing components into the smaller form factor while still preserving space for expandability.
Apple's Mac Pro was last updated (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/27/apple-announces-new-mac-pros-with-up-to-12-cores-ssd-options/) in late July, meaning that the line could be due for an update (http://www.macrumors.com/buyersguide/#Mac_Pro), although the company has been stretching out its Mac Pro product cycles over the past few years.
Article Link: Apple Developing Narrower, Rackmountable Mac Pro Prototypes? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/)
So rude - server "Fans" - there are server users too - not just a fanclub like your base of readers, but actual people who use the stuff.
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/21/152122-mac_pro_2010_inside.jpg)
Inside Apple's current Mac Pro
According to 9 to 5 Mac, Apple is "toying with" a redesigned prototype (http://www.9to5mac.com/63107/prototype-next-gen-mac-pro-detailed-redesigned-rackable-stackable/) for its Mac Pro line, narrowing the design from its current 8.1-inch width to something slightly over 5 inches wide. Combined with a slight reduction in height to around 19 inches, the redesign would apparently allow the Mac Pro to be rackmountable in server cabinets as a 3U component.Apple of course used to offer its dedicated Xserve product line offering a thinner 1U component for rackmountable use, but the company discontinued the line (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-discontinues-xserve-only-available-until-january-31st/) as of January 31st of this year. The company has since introduced a new "server" configuration (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-releases-new-server-configuration-of-mac-pro-to-replace-xserve/) of the Mac Pro, but a redesign to accommodate both standard upright orientation and a sideways rackmounted one would likely be a welcome move for server fans despite the significant increase in rack space required.
The report claims that Apple has developed a "stacked" drive configuration utilizing sleds capable of handling two conventional or solid state hard drives apiece, increasing the density of drives in an attempt to squeeze all of the existing components into the smaller form factor while still preserving space for expandability.
Apple's Mac Pro was last updated (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/27/apple-announces-new-mac-pros-with-up-to-12-cores-ssd-options/) in late July, meaning that the line could be due for an update (http://www.macrumors.com/buyersguide/#Mac_Pro), although the company has been stretching out its Mac Pro product cycles over the past few years.
Article Link: Apple Developing Narrower, Rackmountable Mac Pro Prototypes? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/)
So rude - server "Fans" - there are server users too - not just a fanclub like your base of readers, but actual people who use the stuff.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 9, 09:32 PM
Oh, I can admit when I'm wrong. I used to believe in protecting tenure for teachers. See?
Then we can end this on agreement. I don't believe in it too. My wife should keep her job if and only if she continues to do it well not because its near impossible to fire tenured staff. But don't think I missed your sarcasm...
Then we can end this on agreement. I don't believe in it too. My wife should keep her job if and only if she continues to do it well not because its near impossible to fire tenured staff. But don't think I missed your sarcasm...
aswitcher
Aug 4, 07:43 AM
Wining Switchers should be Apple's goal now.
Agreed. So that means...
Leopard - seemless Windows intergration...
Target the multimedia computer market with those wanting their HDTVs and iPods to connect to their new Mac. Make the mac part of the furniture and easy to operate.
Geek switchers. Along with Leopard / Windows, they will want decent gaming punch which means a Mac Box with pro features like replacable graphics cards but still price competative. I see a low/min Mac Pro. Could be the same machine or a variation of the multimedia one. That way 2 birds one stone.
Keep innovating. New tech stuff early. 802.11n. iPhones. Touch screens (without touch) etc.
Agreed. So that means...
Leopard - seemless Windows intergration...
Target the multimedia computer market with those wanting their HDTVs and iPods to connect to their new Mac. Make the mac part of the furniture and easy to operate.
Geek switchers. Along with Leopard / Windows, they will want decent gaming punch which means a Mac Box with pro features like replacable graphics cards but still price competative. I see a low/min Mac Pro. Could be the same machine or a variation of the multimedia one. That way 2 birds one stone.
Keep innovating. New tech stuff early. 802.11n. iPhones. Touch screens (without touch) etc.
Bonte
Apr 18, 04:01 PM
Looking at the TouchWiz UI, I see your point.
But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?
We had smartphones, tablets and organisers years before the iPhone, if the layout and form-factor was so intuitive it should have been used before. Apple also uses the the start-screen a lot in promotions, it has become a logo for the device. Samsung also copy's the advertising to make it look like an Apple device, more than once i have to look more closely to a billboard to confirm it's not an iPhone. Samsung is the biggest copycat of them all.
But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?
We had smartphones, tablets and organisers years before the iPhone, if the layout and form-factor was so intuitive it should have been used before. Apple also uses the the start-screen a lot in promotions, it has become a logo for the device. Samsung also copy's the advertising to make it look like an Apple device, more than once i have to look more closely to a billboard to confirm it's not an iPhone. Samsung is the biggest copycat of them all.
ECUpirate44
Mar 28, 10:16 AM
So the source with the updated info is suggesting that there will not be a new iPhone in 2011? That would stink. My crap LG versa is on its last legs. :rolleyes:
carlos700
Aug 2, 06:16 PM
I do not expect MacBook Pros because Intel Core 2 Duo for notebooks has not been announced yet.
mobi
Apr 5, 01:10 PM
...Of course they did. Big brother is watching everyone.
Stevamundo
Dec 14, 10:25 PM
I don't, either. That's why I'm polite enough to make sure my PC friends are running anti-virus software, to protect them from malware, no matter where it may come from.
Eventually Macs will get viruses too.
What's the big deal? It's free and it runs well on my Mac. It's just extra protection for my Mac and for my PC friends.
Eventually Macs will get viruses too.
What's the big deal? It's free and it runs well on my Mac. It's just extra protection for my Mac and for my PC friends.
Remingtonh
Apr 25, 09:17 AM
Just don't go anywhere you're not supposed to be and it's a non issue.
rdrr
Sep 15, 06:32 PM
One other feature I would like to see in MBP would be an embedded evdo chip. That most likely won't happen but would be really nice.
louis Fashion
Mar 27, 02:01 PM
iPad 2 HD
coming september 2011
$999 / �799
same specs and design as 64GB iPad 2, but with 2048x1536 screen, at 264ppi.
Great guess! But I still will be first in line in 2012 for my IPV.3!!
coming september 2011
$999 / �799
same specs and design as 64GB iPad 2, but with 2048x1536 screen, at 264ppi.
Great guess! But I still will be first in line in 2012 for my IPV.3!!
miamijim
Nov 10, 08:06 AM
I have installed this and am running it now but I do have 1.75 TB of data on my drives to go through, I will update this when the scan is complete.
It all looks nice and simple anyway so far.
:)
It all looks nice and simple anyway so far.
:)
maril1111
Dec 15, 04:47 AM
whats better sophos or kaspersky for mac?
MorphingDragon
Apr 22, 05:09 PM
The server market is the backbone of the business market. Macs will be niche in enterprise as long as the backbone isn't there, and stronger than last time.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Apple can be a great contender in the enterprise market without even touching server space.
There's plenty of client side areas Apple can compete in. God knows any of the current "Enterprise" companies aren't going to deliver a well polished client side, especially in the Mobile space.
If you need a "Certified Engineer" and $10k worth of training to set up your software, you're doing something wrong.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Apple can be a great contender in the enterprise market without even touching server space.
There's plenty of client side areas Apple can compete in. God knows any of the current "Enterprise" companies aren't going to deliver a well polished client side, especially in the Mobile space.
If you need a "Certified Engineer" and $10k worth of training to set up your software, you're doing something wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment