Tonsko
Dec 10, 05:32 AM
Thanks for that Chase. I think most people are choosing to run it so they don't act as some sort of 'Typhoid Mary' for any PC networks they connect to.
Don't panic
May 3, 01:58 PM
when the villain places monsters/traps, are they one per turn or any number per turn (provided that he has them)?
can monster be moved to a different room by the villain after they are placed? can he reorganize them at every round? does it cost points? can traps be moved? are all traps the same (cost and damage)?
if a villain needs to go through a room where he placed a trap, can he temporarily disable it?
can monster be moved to a different room by the villain after they are placed? can he reorganize them at every round? does it cost points? can traps be moved? are all traps the same (cost and damage)?
if a villain needs to go through a room where he placed a trap, can he temporarily disable it?
kavika411
Mar 29, 08:49 AM
Okay, nice, guys. This is MacRumors, not AmazonRumors. Who gives a crap about Amazon? Move along now.
Oh, so Amazon's cloud offering will have no bearing on what Apple rolls out? Sounds like you've got this all figured out.
Oh, so Amazon's cloud offering will have no bearing on what Apple rolls out? Sounds like you've got this all figured out.
ergle2
Sep 15, 11:09 PM
If you really want longer battery life, then you should be hoping to keep the X1600. It's regarded as having the best "performance per watt" of recent mobile GPUs.
I'd rather have a bigger battery and a Go 7700. I've not seen any decent figures for power draw on the mobile chips. The 7700 is manufactured on an 80nm process tho', so that should help some.
Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.
Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.
Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.
I'd rather have a bigger battery and a Go 7700. I've not seen any decent figures for power draw on the mobile chips. The 7700 is manufactured on an 80nm process tho', so that should help some.
Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.
Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.
Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.
itcheroni
Apr 15, 11:25 AM
...
prom updos 2011 for long hair.
2011 prom updos picture
prom updos for medium hair
2011 prom updos for long hair.
prom updos for short hair
ChrisNM
Apr 25, 09:13 AM
It's just the way you are holding your iPhone.
hobo.hopkins
Mar 31, 09:34 AM
What the heck is a "golden master candidate"? Google search only hits on this story and a story about iOS 4.0. As far as I know, Apple doesn't use the term. Someone made it up and ran with it.
It makes no sense. There are Release Candidates, and there are Golden Masters.
I was thinking the same thing; it doesn't make much sense to have a candidate for a supposedly Golden Master build. There shouldn't be more than one!
On another note, I am really loving Lion because everything seems more intuitive to use. I love the small things, like moving forward and backward in Safari. I'm also loving the full screen feature.
It makes no sense. There are Release Candidates, and there are Golden Masters.
I was thinking the same thing; it doesn't make much sense to have a candidate for a supposedly Golden Master build. There shouldn't be more than one!
On another note, I am really loving Lion because everything seems more intuitive to use. I love the small things, like moving forward and backward in Safari. I'm also loving the full screen feature.
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.)
carlos700
Aug 2, 09:30 PM
I think since they announced it so far a head of schedule, they might have those pages up and running yet.
Ok, that makes sense. I guess Conroe is the only Core 2 Duo chip that's available today. (And Woodcrest but it's marketed as Xeon 5100)
Ok, that makes sense. I guess Conroe is the only Core 2 Duo chip that's available today. (And Woodcrest but it's marketed as Xeon 5100)
MacRumors
Apr 7, 09:27 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/07/apple-buys-up-touch-panels-delaying-rims-tablet-release/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/22/133658-blackberry_playbook_apps_500.jpg
2011 prom updos for long hair.
Prom hairstyles 2011 for long
prom hair 2011 for long
prom updos 2011 for long hair.
prom updos 2011 for long hair.
prom updos 2011 for long hair.
Prom Hair Styles Updos 2011
to long length hair. The
for long hair,. celebrity
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/22/133658-blackberry_playbook_apps_500.jpg
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:11 PM
If I want, I can install Mac OS X SL or Leopard on a 1000 machines using the same CD. :)
Not legally.
Not legally.
hildey
Apr 23, 05:15 PM
a retina display on the 13" MBP would be the one thing that would get me to upgrade almost immediately.
Tight.E.Whitey
Aug 7, 02:55 PM
I want to get one TODAY, I've been waiting since April for this. I wonder if they're available in the phyiscal apple stores. Someone else said their local apple store won't have them till later this week... but I live in NYC, so I could go to flagship 5th Ave. store, maybe they're more likely to have it today. I guess I'll have to break down and give them a call (as if they haven't already had 5,000 calls today asking the exact same question).
swingerofbirch
Jul 30, 01:10 AM
I've been eligible to upgrade my Verizon phone for a while now (new every 2), but have held off because the phones all seem so gimmicky. I like Verizon call quality, but I feel like their phones (all cell phones) are dictated by what the service providers want to be able to sell (Vcast, etc).
So they add cameras and EVDO etc to make more money from the associated services they offer.
The only two feature requests I ever have from a cell phone are: better reception and better battery life.
I have never cared about the other features, because I prefered carrying devices that specialized in those areas, ie a separate digital camera and an iPod.
However, it seems that Apple's major competition going forward will be from cell phone carriers who sell songs (albeit at 3.99/each) directly to cell phones.
The cell phone carriers have the advantage in that a lot of people will be buying these devices whether they want MP3 players or not. You have a cell phone, you've got an MP3 player. And not only that, you don't need a PC to buy music, you do it right from the phone.
Going forward the quality of phones as Mp3 players and cameras and the phones' music store experiences will improve, and Apple obviously realizes this will be their competition (more so I believe than a Wifi enabled Zune).
Perhaps Apple's wild-bet will be a device that is a master of all trades. They could combine iPod with Newton PDA a cell phone and a decent camera (iSight?).
I would imagine that to offer a device like this and not have it hobbled by terrible software and keep it fairly open, Apple will need to create their own wireless network. They do have 9.5 billion.
:)
I think it's where the future is headed. But it's a big bet. But in business it's also a bet not to take a big bet sometimes.
So they add cameras and EVDO etc to make more money from the associated services they offer.
The only two feature requests I ever have from a cell phone are: better reception and better battery life.
I have never cared about the other features, because I prefered carrying devices that specialized in those areas, ie a separate digital camera and an iPod.
However, it seems that Apple's major competition going forward will be from cell phone carriers who sell songs (albeit at 3.99/each) directly to cell phones.
The cell phone carriers have the advantage in that a lot of people will be buying these devices whether they want MP3 players or not. You have a cell phone, you've got an MP3 player. And not only that, you don't need a PC to buy music, you do it right from the phone.
Going forward the quality of phones as Mp3 players and cameras and the phones' music store experiences will improve, and Apple obviously realizes this will be their competition (more so I believe than a Wifi enabled Zune).
Perhaps Apple's wild-bet will be a device that is a master of all trades. They could combine iPod with Newton PDA a cell phone and a decent camera (iSight?).
I would imagine that to offer a device like this and not have it hobbled by terrible software and keep it fairly open, Apple will need to create their own wireless network. They do have 9.5 billion.
:)
I think it's where the future is headed. But it's a big bet. But in business it's also a bet not to take a big bet sometimes.
Defender2010
Mar 27, 03:47 AM
2011 is all about the iPad2...........period.........no iPad 3 until next year. Otherwise Steve would have said " three quarters of 2011 is all about the iPad 2 and the rest of it is about iPad 3"......don't you people listen????
Eidorian
Jul 22, 01:14 PM
Thanks for the link. Your right they are all in need of an update. I assumed most of them were brand new. Wow.I just spam that link and the one to my Merom guide. Someone is bound to listen.
alexph
Mar 29, 01:45 PM
Guess this will affect iPod, iPhone and iPad - I wonder if that is the reason why iPhone5 will be dlayed till fall or even next year. Not much good in hyping up new products if many of your core components are unobtainable. I imagine that it not just batteries that all manufacturers will have problems with.
The Japanese are resilient, but it will take years for them to fully recover.
A
The Japanese are resilient, but it will take years for them to fully recover.
A
kaboutertje
Jul 30, 05:39 AM
I'm ready to ditch my PEBL along with my RAZR if they design a easy to use stylish phone that will sync with my contacts.
A full size touchscreen but a sleek design, hmmm....
What I would like:
- 4gig for mp3's
- sync with my contacts
The rest I don't care for that much, unless they implement it really good offcourse. The camera is integrated rather well in the pebl and razr so it doesn't annoy me, but I never use it anyways (maybe because the quality is crap :) )
A full size touchscreen but a sleek design, hmmm....
What I would like:
- 4gig for mp3's
- sync with my contacts
The rest I don't care for that much, unless they implement it really good offcourse. The camera is integrated rather well in the pebl and razr so it doesn't annoy me, but I never use it anyways (maybe because the quality is crap :) )
starflyer
Mar 27, 12:52 PM
My thoughts exactly. Our school district (ISD 482) just bought 1,465 iPads for its students, and I can see us getting really mad if Apple were to release a new iPad 6 mos. later.
If the iPad 2 wasn't what you needed, why not wait?
If the iPad 2 wasn't what you needed, why not wait?
Michaelgtrusa
May 4, 05:03 PM
I would rather have a disc or flash drive.
skunk
Sep 11, 07:02 AM
Just trying to hedge off the 5,123 "This is BS, no MBP/MB updates OMG!!!11BBQ" threads. ;)That's "head off", not "hedge off". You of all people should remember that...:)
42streetsdown
May 6, 01:48 AM
This seems unlikely. The PPC to Intel switch was a result of Apple not being impressed by both IBM and Motorola's lack of interest in continuing the advances in the PowerPC architecture. Intel's current architecture and future planned architectures are still of great interest to apple and consumers. There isn't enough motivation (unless some huge new breakthrough in ARM tech is in the works.)
The PPC-Intel transition was confusing for many consumers and a pain for developers. I don't think Apple is likely to put us through it again.
The PPC-Intel transition was confusing for many consumers and a pain for developers. I don't think Apple is likely to put us through it again.
Erwin-Br
Apr 21, 04:33 PM
It's not going to happen. If Apple was still interested in offering a rack mountable system they would have redesigned the X-Serve instead of the Mac Pro.
Where is the logic in dropping a perfectly fine rack-mountable system, because apparently it wasn't sold enough, and then convert the Mac Pro workstation to... a rack-mountable system?! They could've dropped the Mac Pro and rebrand X-Serve to Mac Pro instead. Same result.
Where is the logic in dropping a perfectly fine rack-mountable system, because apparently it wasn't sold enough, and then convert the Mac Pro workstation to... a rack-mountable system?! They could've dropped the Mac Pro and rebrand X-Serve to Mac Pro instead. Same result.
Eriden
Sep 16, 06:00 PM
If they souped up a 13.3" MB enclosure, wouldn't it require a serious overhaul of the appropriate internals, especially ditching the integrated graphics for a dedicated solution? (Not that Jonathan Ive & Co would have much of a problem making it happen.) Before I went to the recently opened Apple Store in Norfolk, VA, I might have considered a 13.3" MBP. But after having played around with the 17"... I'm in love. When Tuesday cometh, I'll be ordering a 17" MBP... merom or yonah. From all the shipping delays, merom is looking more hopeful all the time!
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar