Raidersmojo
Aug 4, 11:35 PM
Originally Posted by digitalbiker
After Paris. Nov. 23, 2006 to be exact. Too bad you Aussies don't celebrate Thanksgiving. It is all about eating, drinking and watching football.
Speaking of Football, NBC Premieres Sunday Night Football this Sunday night at 8PM East - 5PM West live from Canton Ohio. John Madden is inducted into the Hall of Fame on Saturday and then shares the booth with Al Michaels in their new HD premiere broadcast pitting the Oakland Raiders against the Philadelphia Eagles. Let the games begin.
We get 10 exhibition games this month from the three broadcast networks. Whoopie.
__________________
Go raiders :cool: :D
After Paris. Nov. 23, 2006 to be exact. Too bad you Aussies don't celebrate Thanksgiving. It is all about eating, drinking and watching football.
Speaking of Football, NBC Premieres Sunday Night Football this Sunday night at 8PM East - 5PM West live from Canton Ohio. John Madden is inducted into the Hall of Fame on Saturday and then shares the booth with Al Michaels in their new HD premiere broadcast pitting the Oakland Raiders against the Philadelphia Eagles. Let the games begin.
We get 10 exhibition games this month from the three broadcast networks. Whoopie.
__________________
Go raiders :cool: :D
Play Ultimate
Sep 11, 08:30 AM
Re: movie store - Whatever the final product is, Apple's engineers have spent a lot more time thinking about it than we have in these forums.
More than anything, Apple focuses much more the on the customer's experience so I have faith that the final result will be elegant and work.
More than anything, Apple focuses much more the on the customer's experience so I have faith that the final result will be elegant and work.
dagamer34
Mar 26, 10:14 PM
My thoughts (as a developer):
Reasons to push it back (or more technically, announce it later):
1) Data Center in NC was supposed to be ready in but actually ready 3-6 months later than planned.
2) iOS 5 tied to cloud services, see point #1
Reasons not to delay:
1) In Apple said they would strongly prefer not to release too many services at once (they turned on MobileMe and the App Store in July, and MobileMe suffered terribly for weeks to months).
2) More time to let Android and webOS catch up.
Of course, I want iOS 5 ASAP because notifications are so horribly broken, it's kinda sad, especially on the iPad where you KNOW it can be done in a better, less obtrusive way. That's one point where I say iOS for iPad really is just a scaled up iPhone version.
Reasons to push it back (or more technically, announce it later):
1) Data Center in NC was supposed to be ready in but actually ready 3-6 months later than planned.
2) iOS 5 tied to cloud services, see point #1
Reasons not to delay:
1) In Apple said they would strongly prefer not to release too many services at once (they turned on MobileMe and the App Store in July, and MobileMe suffered terribly for weeks to months).
2) More time to let Android and webOS catch up.
Of course, I want iOS 5 ASAP because notifications are so horribly broken, it's kinda sad, especially on the iPad where you KNOW it can be done in a better, less obtrusive way. That's one point where I say iOS for iPad really is just a scaled up iPhone version.
ashley1496
Mar 29, 12:16 PM
I was excited about this at first but... this just seems like an incredibly stupid fad. Instead of spending time to put the music on my PMP, I sync to the digital cloud, then stream the music to said player. Yeah, in an era where unlimited data is becoming more not less scarce, that's just what I need, data surcharges. This just appears to be yet another fad intending to push consumer technology in the wrong direction.
I completely agree. I see a scary thing starting here. It used to be overage for "minutes" on phones (which almost never happens how). But now they want you to have "caps". They "claim" that the "typical user" doesn't regularly reach the cap. But with more and more of services with offerings like the cloud come into play. EVERYONE will be hitting those caps. Hell, just UPLOADING your music to the "cloud" may do this for some. Not to mention, if you get close you know that certain companies *cough-comcast* SLOW your internet speed down, right?
Not to mention, you've got these companies who want to charge you for data...and then because you want to use your data a certain way, want to charge you more. (WiFi sharing of iPhone internet, thanks AT&T)
Comcast doesn't charge me extra because we share our internet between 2 computers, 2 iPhones, an iPad, PS3, Tivo, Kindle 3, PSP....etc...
We're heading down a dangerous path... stunted and/or limited internet and stringent data caps.
I completely agree. I see a scary thing starting here. It used to be overage for "minutes" on phones (which almost never happens how). But now they want you to have "caps". They "claim" that the "typical user" doesn't regularly reach the cap. But with more and more of services with offerings like the cloud come into play. EVERYONE will be hitting those caps. Hell, just UPLOADING your music to the "cloud" may do this for some. Not to mention, if you get close you know that certain companies *cough-comcast* SLOW your internet speed down, right?
Not to mention, you've got these companies who want to charge you for data...and then because you want to use your data a certain way, want to charge you more. (WiFi sharing of iPhone internet, thanks AT&T)
Comcast doesn't charge me extra because we share our internet between 2 computers, 2 iPhones, an iPad, PS3, Tivo, Kindle 3, PSP....etc...
We're heading down a dangerous path... stunted and/or limited internet and stringent data caps.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
bluetorch18
Aug 11, 12:21 PM
I really hope Apple gives the MBP a much better GPU that isn't underclocked out of the box. They would have my 2 grand in a second.
Tastic Bycrom
Apr 21, 02:32 PM
I hope they call it the MacServe :D
bousozoku
Nov 23, 06:00 AM
Yeah, I have too, but I don't buy it, really. If you look at Apple's products aimed at professionals/businesses, they're exclusively either Macs or software/software houses they've acquired. I don't think Apple is likely to break with the success it has had offering consumer hardware like the iPod. The iTV will follow in that tradition.
For the record, I really like PalmOS. It does what it's supposed to do very well. What concerns me is the way the companies (or have they reamalgamated now?) are being led in a strange direction - the move to Windows Mobile looks to me like Palm/Palmsource trying to hedge their bets rather than properly marketing what they have had going for them all these years. Time will tell whether it's a good business decision, and whether the PalmOS survives at all. I, for one, hope that it does.
If I remember correctly, Palm software and products were originally developed by a group of ex-Apple employees, weren't they? I think they're the same faction that struck out for a bit by starting Handspring (later brought back into the fold).
I like PalmOS too, though I cannot decide on a device to replace my Handspring Visor Deluxe. I wanted the Treo 700p but it's too expensive. The 680p looks a better price but still a bit expensive and out of sync with my phone timeframe. A scratch-and-dent Tungsten T|X looks good, though.
As far as I know, the people who started Palm (and later, Handspring), Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinsky, didn't work for Apple. However, I've seen some people who credit Trip Hawkins, but he was the man who started Electronic Arts and he did work for Apple. I expect that when the Newton team was disbanded, they went to Palm or Handspring.
The WinCE, errr Mobile...something Pocket something else versions are designed for complete compatibility but have been said to lack certain things that the PalmOS versions have--and vice versa, I suppose.
For the record, I really like PalmOS. It does what it's supposed to do very well. What concerns me is the way the companies (or have they reamalgamated now?) are being led in a strange direction - the move to Windows Mobile looks to me like Palm/Palmsource trying to hedge their bets rather than properly marketing what they have had going for them all these years. Time will tell whether it's a good business decision, and whether the PalmOS survives at all. I, for one, hope that it does.
If I remember correctly, Palm software and products were originally developed by a group of ex-Apple employees, weren't they? I think they're the same faction that struck out for a bit by starting Handspring (later brought back into the fold).
I like PalmOS too, though I cannot decide on a device to replace my Handspring Visor Deluxe. I wanted the Treo 700p but it's too expensive. The 680p looks a better price but still a bit expensive and out of sync with my phone timeframe. A scratch-and-dent Tungsten T|X looks good, though.
As far as I know, the people who started Palm (and later, Handspring), Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinsky, didn't work for Apple. However, I've seen some people who credit Trip Hawkins, but he was the man who started Electronic Arts and he did work for Apple. I expect that when the Newton team was disbanded, they went to Palm or Handspring.
The WinCE, errr Mobile...something Pocket something else versions are designed for complete compatibility but have been said to lack certain things that the PalmOS versions have--and vice versa, I suppose.
SBlue1
Mar 29, 07:12 PM
thanks but i dont need this. :rolleyes:
3N16MA
Apr 26, 03:44 PM
I love that argument - who told Apple to only make 1 phone? Nobody it was their decision. This is PC vs Mac all over again - history repeating itself.
I can't wait to see how Steve Jobs spins this somehow at WWDC - my guess is he'll throw iPod Touches and iPads into their numbers so it doesn't look as horrible as the Nielsen chart shows.
At the end of the day, the truth hurts - Android is the new defacto platform for mobile and that means developers, developers, developers.
Next up...tablets :D
You do realize that Apple takes in healthy profit from selling Mac's right? They do not need 90% market share to turn a massive profit. They would love it but don't need it.
I can't wait to see how Steve Jobs spins this somehow at WWDC - my guess is he'll throw iPod Touches and iPads into their numbers so it doesn't look as horrible as the Nielsen chart shows.
At the end of the day, the truth hurts - Android is the new defacto platform for mobile and that means developers, developers, developers.
Next up...tablets :D
You do realize that Apple takes in healthy profit from selling Mac's right? They do not need 90% market share to turn a massive profit. They would love it but don't need it.
dampfnudel
Mar 27, 12:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
If iOS 5 is delayed, it's possible that the iPhone 5 release will be later than June, perhaps September. A slightly improved version of the iPad 2 could also be released around that time, to be sold alongside the current version. September's Apple event could be a lot more than just new iPods.
If iOS 5 is delayed, it's possible that the iPhone 5 release will be later than June, perhaps September. A slightly improved version of the iPad 2 could also be released around that time, to be sold alongside the current version. September's Apple event could be a lot more than just new iPods.
21stcenturykid
Aug 11, 04:43 PM
Dates!! I just want to know dates!! Not until september, please Apple, release the MBP with Merom processors this month!!
And make it available inmediatly, that same day!!
That's all I'm asking for, no more....
Five Petaled Flowers - Clipart
More Free Clipart from
pink flower clip art free.
hibiscus flower clip art free.
flower clip art free.
flower clip art free.
flower clip art free.
And make it available inmediatly, that same day!!
That's all I'm asking for, no more....
ChrisA
May 4, 05:13 PM
If they are using the App Store for distribution then I'd assume a new feature of Lion is "Build a Recovery DVD". That means you can write your own install DVD to be used after a crash.
jmcrutch
Apr 18, 04:17 PM
While I don't care who sues who - in the end the laywers win. ....
Actually, YOU win. The United States provides for patents to "promote" and "further" advancements in the things that we all come here to discuss everyday. One can argue the merits of such a system but that is one of the purposes of the patent laws. Basically, incentive to make the world a better place for all.
Take away the incentive and there might not be as much innovation.
Actually, YOU win. The United States provides for patents to "promote" and "further" advancements in the things that we all come here to discuss everyday. One can argue the merits of such a system but that is one of the purposes of the patent laws. Basically, incentive to make the world a better place for all.
Take away the incentive and there might not be as much innovation.
Tsurisuto
Apr 21, 02:32 PM
Yes, but where is my Sandy Bridge Mac mini?!
Porscheboy16
Aug 11, 09:24 AM
Crap! My MacBook should be here on Monday. Is there anyway to return an online order?
JackAxe
Apr 23, 10:44 PM
Doesn't OS X already support displays up to 2560x1600? Afaik that was the resolution of Apple's own (now discontinued) 30" display and the resolution of most, if not all, 30" displays available at the moment. 3200x2000 is nothing but the next rung on the ladder. This is just Apple future-proofing their OS a bit. If they release anything in the short term it will most likely be a big-ass iMac or a bigger Apple Display, NOT a laptop running that resolution. Just saying...
Yep. My Apple 30", which I bought in 2005 is 2560 x 1600. Oh, and my MacBook Pro 17", which runs at 1900 x 1200 can drive it as a secondary display. So could my older 17".
Here's something most people don't know. IBM created a 200 PPI display back in 2000. Veiwsonic later released it as their VP2290b, which ran at 3200 x 2400. I recall when it came out, that it was over $6k. It required 2 DVI cables to drive it, since at that time, Dual-DVI ports were not available.
Yep. My Apple 30", which I bought in 2005 is 2560 x 1600. Oh, and my MacBook Pro 17", which runs at 1900 x 1200 can drive it as a secondary display. So could my older 17".
Here's something most people don't know. IBM created a 200 PPI display back in 2000. Veiwsonic later released it as their VP2290b, which ran at 3200 x 2400. I recall when it came out, that it was over $6k. It required 2 DVI cables to drive it, since at that time, Dual-DVI ports were not available.
milozauckerman
Aug 7, 06:51 PM
1 GB Sticks are only $125 each from Third Parties.
That isn't a heatsinked FB-DIMM.
RAM is truly the dealbreaker here. EDU prices bring the 2.0 model down to a reasonable price, but I want 4GB - I'd like to scan my 4x5 film, so the more RAM the better - thanks to Xeon and the need for the ECC heatsinked stuff, I'm looking at $800 from Crucial. No way, man, not gonna do it.
The more I look at it, the more I believe a reasonable mid-tower option has to be in the pipeline.
That isn't a heatsinked FB-DIMM.
RAM is truly the dealbreaker here. EDU prices bring the 2.0 model down to a reasonable price, but I want 4GB - I'd like to scan my 4x5 film, so the more RAM the better - thanks to Xeon and the need for the ECC heatsinked stuff, I'm looking at $800 from Crucial. No way, man, not gonna do it.
The more I look at it, the more I believe a reasonable mid-tower option has to be in the pipeline.
skinned66
Apr 5, 09:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Apple is just trying to protect the user experience for their product.
Yes, it is ours to use and do with whatever we want once paid for, but.........
Every jailbroken iphone user will complain and tell somebody that their phone always freezes up or isn't working right.
They are not going to say in most cases it freezes, because I jail broke it!
That info makes it look as if it is Apples fault that things don't work.
:confused:My jailbroken iPhone 4 doesn't freeze on me. You shouldn't just make stuff up to defend Apple.
The jailbreak haters make me laugh. My phone works just fine and while I do use a bit more memory, it's perfectly stable and I get a phone with far more utility. Any resultant perfomance issues are so negligible stock is not even competition.
I understand some people bite off more than they can chew when they JB. I also know that scenario doesn't apply to everyone.
Apple is just trying to protect the user experience for their product.
Yes, it is ours to use and do with whatever we want once paid for, but.........
Every jailbroken iphone user will complain and tell somebody that their phone always freezes up or isn't working right.
They are not going to say in most cases it freezes, because I jail broke it!
That info makes it look as if it is Apples fault that things don't work.
:confused:My jailbroken iPhone 4 doesn't freeze on me. You shouldn't just make stuff up to defend Apple.
The jailbreak haters make me laugh. My phone works just fine and while I do use a bit more memory, it's perfectly stable and I get a phone with far more utility. Any resultant perfomance issues are so negligible stock is not even competition.
I understand some people bite off more than they can chew when they JB. I also know that scenario doesn't apply to everyone.
ChrisTX
Apr 8, 07:29 AM
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
Were there truly tablets or just netvirtibles? There's a huge difference, and a reason why those never took off. Again no one wanted any of those because they all suck. People now don't want a tablet computer, they want an iPad.
Were there truly tablets or just netvirtibles? There's a huge difference, and a reason why those never took off. Again no one wanted any of those because they all suck. People now don't want a tablet computer, they want an iPad.
charlituna
Apr 25, 09:44 AM
So Steve is saying there is no database of locations? Thats just an outright lie.
He didn't say that at all. The question was if Apple is tracking user locations. He said no. Which is correct. The information never leaves your iphone or computer.
Unlike the app that shows the map of the spots which calls out to two servers, one of which couldn't be identified and for all we know is recording your data along with your IP and other deets.
He didn't say that at all. The question was if Apple is tracking user locations. He said no. Which is correct. The information never leaves your iphone or computer.
Unlike the app that shows the map of the spots which calls out to two servers, one of which couldn't be identified and for all we know is recording your data along with your IP and other deets.
AidenShaw
Aug 4, 09:21 PM
Too true. I have a Win2k app I've been developing which could use more than 4GB RAM - in fact more than 2GB RAM (Win2k won't let a process use more than 2GB for various reasons)....
Actually, Win2K Server and later can support 3 GiB of private RAM per process - there's a boot flag to raise the 2 GiB limit to 3 GiB.
Even with the 32 bit processors supporting more than 4GB RAM, does Windows support it? Microsoft has a habit of not supporting things unless "a lot" of people will use it.
Yes, boot Win2k Server and later with the /PAE boot flag - the entire physical RAM space (except for maybe a bit for I/O) is available to the system. Couple that with the 3 GiB flag, and you can use the memory.
Linux also supports the 64 GiB limit with 32-bit CPUs - remember that Windows isn't the only other x86 operating system ;)
Actually, Win2K Server and later can support 3 GiB of private RAM per process - there's a boot flag to raise the 2 GiB limit to 3 GiB.
Even with the 32 bit processors supporting more than 4GB RAM, does Windows support it? Microsoft has a habit of not supporting things unless "a lot" of people will use it.
Yes, boot Win2k Server and later with the /PAE boot flag - the entire physical RAM space (except for maybe a bit for I/O) is available to the system. Couple that with the 3 GiB flag, and you can use the memory.
Linux also supports the 64 GiB limit with 32-bit CPUs - remember that Windows isn't the only other x86 operating system ;)
treblah
Aug 3, 11:25 AM
How Do You Make A Yonah MBP Run @ 2.33GHz? You Don't. It's Merom Inside.
I see that you misunderstood the context of the 2.33Ghz but you are still incorrect. You can buy a 2.33Ghz Yonah today, its called the T2700. I know there are not any T2700's in a MBP but Apple could have done so if they wanted.
Now, back to your 1.67X Battery life…
Straight from a "Merom vs. Yonah" AnandTech article (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=15) released earlier today:
Here there's no difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, which in the mobile world is important. If Intel isn't going to give us any more battery life, it had better not take any away.
In our final battery life test, the Core 2 Duo T7600 actually falls behind its Core Duo counterpart by 2 minutes, but the margin of error for battery life tests is usually at least 1%, so overall battery life is essentially identical.
:)
I see that you misunderstood the context of the 2.33Ghz but you are still incorrect. You can buy a 2.33Ghz Yonah today, its called the T2700. I know there are not any T2700's in a MBP but Apple could have done so if they wanted.
Now, back to your 1.67X Battery life…
Straight from a "Merom vs. Yonah" AnandTech article (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=15) released earlier today:
Here there's no difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, which in the mobile world is important. If Intel isn't going to give us any more battery life, it had better not take any away.
In our final battery life test, the Core 2 Duo T7600 actually falls behind its Core Duo counterpart by 2 minutes, but the margin of error for battery life tests is usually at least 1%, so overall battery life is essentially identical.
:)
blow45
Mar 29, 03:11 PM
No, "best wishes" for our Japanese friends.
"Prayers" to the flying spaghetti monster are a waste of time - put the people of Japan into your thoughts, don't involve some ficticious deity.
Yeah, if you are to believe in a deity, you should first consult with uber belief commissar Aiden Shaw to allow you to say a prayer. :rolleyes:
"Prayers" to the flying spaghetti monster are a waste of time - put the people of Japan into your thoughts, don't involve some ficticious deity.
Yeah, if you are to believe in a deity, you should first consult with uber belief commissar Aiden Shaw to allow you to say a prayer. :rolleyes:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar