aloshka
Apr 4, 12:00 PM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
Well if there are no real consequences to carrying a gun, and shooting it at guards since I might only be facing jail time, it sounds like criminals should try more often. I mean hell, that's a big safety net, they should have tried banks better pay off and they can try multiple times since the only consequence is possible jail time.
Well if there are no real consequences to carrying a gun, and shooting it at guards since I might only be facing jail time, it sounds like criminals should try more often. I mean hell, that's a big safety net, they should have tried banks better pay off and they can try multiple times since the only consequence is possible jail time.
FleurDuMal
Sep 14, 08:49 AM
Apple's not doing another invite just for an Aperture update..
MBP's
Surely they wouldn't have a whole invite just for an MBP update either? Although this board seems obsessed with Merom MBP's, replacing a chip in a laptop really isn't that exciting.
I'm hoping for a completely new product range of some sort.
MBP's
Surely they wouldn't have a whole invite just for an MBP update either? Although this board seems obsessed with Merom MBP's, replacing a chip in a laptop really isn't that exciting.
I'm hoping for a completely new product range of some sort.
monaarts
Apr 4, 12:30 PM
Apple needs to start paying it's employees better... Seriously, it seems like there is a robbery at an Apple Store every other day. Maybe TLC will make a movie about it soon, "The Deadliest Retail Job" HAHA
- Joe
- Joe
mwayne85
Apr 22, 04:42 PM
Apple should produce a really light and small MacBook Air: 400 to 600 g and 7-inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
Apple would have to sacrifice the full-size keyboard and probably the trackpad... and according to Steve, "These are areas that you do not want to sacrifice." Making them smaller would be borderline useless.
Apple would have to sacrifice the full-size keyboard and probably the trackpad... and according to Steve, "These are areas that you do not want to sacrifice." Making them smaller would be borderline useless.
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 02:46 PM
Question: Will gapless iPod playback be 5/5.1G feature only? My 4G is sitting here feeling left out.
well i'm only hoping that some sort of firmwares might do the right job
hopefully somebody might come up with one i guess
but the thing is i don't really care about gapless ****...
i don't like pink floyd, i don't like classical music, and generally, i don't need to listen to a 'flowy' album all the time, do i??
i'm just well content with my 5gen *sob
well i'm only hoping that some sort of firmwares might do the right job
hopefully somebody might come up with one i guess
but the thing is i don't really care about gapless ****...
i don't like pink floyd, i don't like classical music, and generally, i don't need to listen to a 'flowy' album all the time, do i??
i'm just well content with my 5gen *sob
Full of Win
Apr 30, 01:13 PM
One step closer to the MacBook Air update.
iApples
Apr 4, 12:28 PM
Anybody responsible for guarding should have a gun. If the person isn't qualified to carry a gun, they he/she isn't qualified to guard anything and shouldn't be a guard.
When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.
Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?
Well said.
I don't feel bad for criminals... I rather see him die than an innocent bystander that was just visiting the Apple store.
When you're exchanging gunfire with a criminal, the main goal is not to wound; it is to remove the threat to your life completely. Let's say the guard shoots the guy in the arm, the guy's going to be so pumped up on adrenaline that he's not going to even know he's shot, giving him plenty of opportunity to take another shot.
Ask yourself this: If it were your life he was guarding, what would you want the guard to do?
Well said.
I don't feel bad for criminals... I rather see him die than an innocent bystander that was just visiting the Apple store.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
jmille44
Apr 22, 07:36 PM
I have an original mac portable sitting next to my 11". Laptop design has only downsized from this original beast and gotten faster.
I am not impressed yet. Incremental updates, nothing major or breakthrough.
That's just how it will always be. I'll hold onto this 11" for 8 years and guess what. It's replacement will be just an 11" roll out touch screen computer.
That is where this is going in 8 years and I am still not impressed.
I am not impressed yet. Incremental updates, nothing major or breakthrough.
That's just how it will always be. I'll hold onto this 11" for 8 years and guess what. It's replacement will be just an 11" roll out touch screen computer.
That is where this is going in 8 years and I am still not impressed.
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:07 PM
If Apple kills the MacPro it is there own fault. I can member when they used to be affordable at $1499 and now they are completely out of my price range for a new computer. I have been using an 867 G4 for TEN YEARS and will finally upgrade to an iMac with more power then 3 867's put together.
1 $1499
Intel? Core? i7-2600S Processor
(8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)
8GB RAM
2TB HD
AMD Radeon? HD 6850 Graphics
Sounds great to me!:)
My dream iMac would be:
Intel? Core? i7-2600S Processor
(8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)
8GB RAM
2TB HD
AMD 6950
Redesigned cooling! Those things get HOT
1 $1499
Intel? Core? i7-2600S Processor
(8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)
8GB RAM
2TB HD
AMD Radeon? HD 6850 Graphics
Sounds great to me!:)
My dream iMac would be:
Intel? Core? i7-2600S Processor
(8M Cache, 2.80 GHz)
8GB RAM
2TB HD
AMD 6950
Redesigned cooling! Those things get HOT
Westyfield2
Apr 30, 03:00 PM
Hey.... Where is my updated Mac Mini?
Patience child. iMac has to come first, but then the Mini :cool:.
Patience child. iMac has to come first, but then the Mini :cool:.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 15, 11:27 AM
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports.
With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold.
It's barely entered the market - on the mac. I'm rocking 6 usb 3 ports over here.
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports with no adapters.
It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
Compared to devices which nobody has which are not compatible with anything else? Compared to a next gen connector that is on one line of apple only products?
Thunderbolt is sweet, but nobody is using it yet and it is a unique connector. I smell another expensive adapter market coming...
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money
It's not expensive and whose time is it wasting? I mean other than people foaming at the mouth on forums.
Prince Harry on GQ
julie jessica marais are set
and busty Jessica Marais,
Next gq men of danielle x k
Jessica Marais cute in
Jessica Marais cute in
and Jessica Marais are Who
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports.
With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold.
It's barely entered the market - on the mac. I'm rocking 6 usb 3 ports over here.
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point.
Sure there is. Higher speeds and backwards compatibility with older ports with no adapters.
It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
Compared to devices which nobody has which are not compatible with anything else? Compared to a next gen connector that is on one line of apple only products?
Thunderbolt is sweet, but nobody is using it yet and it is a unique connector. I smell another expensive adapter market coming...
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money
It's not expensive and whose time is it wasting? I mean other than people foaming at the mouth on forums.
zango
Apr 25, 02:01 PM
Didn't Apple recently hire someone that deals with carbon-fibre? Guessing might have something to do with that...
devman
Sep 26, 09:26 AM
Yeah, but not if it's locked. I had to call up my provider and beg for my unlock code so that I could use *my* phone in Asia, and then they said yes, and never sent it to me. Call them back, and...well..rinse, repeat.
What about people like me who travel a lot and want to pop in SIM cards in other places? I'm sick and tired of the U.S. market and all of its stupid contract / vendor lock-in ********.
Pity to see Apple on that bandwagon; I hope they just sell the phone in the Apple Store unlocked, and let us choose the carrier we want.
I had no trouble getting an unlock code from Cingular for a SLVR I bought from them. Here's pix I just took showing it in use back home on the Telstra network.
What about people like me who travel a lot and want to pop in SIM cards in other places? I'm sick and tired of the U.S. market and all of its stupid contract / vendor lock-in ********.
Pity to see Apple on that bandwagon; I hope they just sell the phone in the Apple Store unlocked, and let us choose the carrier we want.
I had no trouble getting an unlock code from Cingular for a SLVR I bought from them. Here's pix I just took showing it in use back home on the Telstra network.
munkery
Apr 11, 02:54 PM
Yeah, let's all waste time worrying about a "possible" threat that hasn't proved to be any significant danger in the wild. It's even better that we can worry about it in an obsolete version of the OS!
:rolleyes:
If this is in response to my post, I was just clarifying some details related to an article discussed earlier in the thread.
For those interested, this threat vector in Leopard would allow a similar means of exploitation as ELF viruses in Linux, which were not very serious and did not manifest as any significant threat in the wild.
:rolleyes:
If this is in response to my post, I was just clarifying some details related to an article discussed earlier in the thread.
For those interested, this threat vector in Leopard would allow a similar means of exploitation as ELF viruses in Linux, which were not very serious and did not manifest as any significant threat in the wild.
ghostlyorb
Apr 29, 07:29 AM
Go apple!
gekko513
Aug 23, 06:51 PM
It's not...the press release says that Apple can recoup some of the money if Creative is able to license the patent to other companies.
I found that very part of the settlement very puzzling. If anything, you'd think Apple should be able to recoup som of the money if Creative isn't able to license the patent to other companies that infringe on the same patent, as it would show that Creative doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
I found that very part of the settlement very puzzling. If anything, you'd think Apple should be able to recoup som of the money if Creative isn't able to license the patent to other companies that infringe on the same patent, as it would show that Creative doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
aussie_geek
May 4, 03:29 AM
Bit of a bummer regarding the target display mode. I use my iMac as a target display with my gaming pc. So anyone with a PC box would have to fork out $$$ for a thunderbolt graphics card....
Are there any thunderbolt gfx cards for PC yet?
Are there any thunderbolt gfx cards for PC yet?
TheSailerMan
Oct 12, 08:45 PM
I was wondering when this was going to happen. I'm glad it finally has, though the news has been a bit abrupt, especially for an Apple product.
As much as I like U2's music and how much I'd love to donate money to cure/treat AIDS, I won't be buying one of these.
I like the blue nano too much to buy a red one just because $10 goes to charity, plus... I've been told that red "isn't my color." Seriously.
This morning I was wearing a solid red t-shirt, kind of like the red that the nano is, and my mom told me to change my shirt. There's nothing wrong with the shirt, there's no profane graphics on it (actually, no graphics at all) and it wasn't wrinkled, she just told me that red "isn't my color" (even though she's the one that bought me the shirt)!
Hmmm.... does anyone think this will get Greenpeace off Apple's back?:D
Eh... probably not.:rolleyes:
As much as I like U2's music and how much I'd love to donate money to cure/treat AIDS, I won't be buying one of these.
I like the blue nano too much to buy a red one just because $10 goes to charity, plus... I've been told that red "isn't my color." Seriously.
This morning I was wearing a solid red t-shirt, kind of like the red that the nano is, and my mom told me to change my shirt. There's nothing wrong with the shirt, there's no profane graphics on it (actually, no graphics at all) and it wasn't wrinkled, she just told me that red "isn't my color" (even though she's the one that bought me the shirt)!
Hmmm.... does anyone think this will get Greenpeace off Apple's back?:D
Eh... probably not.:rolleyes:
imosher
Sep 5, 07:55 PM
I hope that there will be a MacBook update- I ordered mine on the 24th and it said it would ship the 1st. I then got an email Monday telling me it would not ship until the 14th. Either I sm highly unlucky and they are way bhind or an update is in the works.
Ian
Ian
PlipPlop
Apr 28, 05:31 PM
Then Microsoft will surge to the top again when they release Windows 8 and a new version of Office.
andrewbecks
Apr 30, 10:58 PM
Hey everyone!
I finally converted my parents from an 8 year old PC that I built for them to an iMac...last week. Hearing the news that the new Sandy Bridge processors are due on Tuesday, what recourse do we have? Can we return the 21.5" for the new one? What sort of restocking fees, etc. would we incur?
Thanks!
Lucky for you and your parents, Apple did away with the restocking fees just a few months ago. As long as you return it within the first 14 days, you shouldn't have any problems or pay any fees.
I finally converted my parents from an 8 year old PC that I built for them to an iMac...last week. Hearing the news that the new Sandy Bridge processors are due on Tuesday, what recourse do we have? Can we return the 21.5" for the new one? What sort of restocking fees, etc. would we incur?
Thanks!
Lucky for you and your parents, Apple did away with the restocking fees just a few months ago. As long as you return it within the first 14 days, you shouldn't have any problems or pay any fees.
bitWrangler
Mar 30, 12:53 PM
Thought it was clear so I'll try again.
Notice the iTunes.exe in the middle? It being the actual program but is denoted as Application.;)
The question was, "yeah, so what". How does this factor into this discussion?
Notice the iTunes.exe in the middle? It being the actual program but is denoted as Application.;)
The question was, "yeah, so what". How does this factor into this discussion?
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:11 PM
Only in America.... Bad form unless it was in defence. How about non lethal take downs, fair courts and appropriate justice, such as jail with community service, get criminals doing something constructive for society and trying to get them back on track?
The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.
I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...
I work in a Jail. I am in a room by myself with 144 inmates (many of whom are in for murder, rape, etc). I can tell you from experience that most of the time the community service, constructive for society stuff DOES NOT WORK. I can't tell you how many repeat offenders I have come through
The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.
I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...
I work in a Jail. I am in a room by myself with 144 inmates (many of whom are in for murder, rape, etc). I can tell you from experience that most of the time the community service, constructive for society stuff DOES NOT WORK. I can't tell you how many repeat offenders I have come through
