vong
Mar 27, 05:44 PM
for you guys in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and South Carolina you can trade in a DS and get $100 off your 3DS purchase, or 2 DS and get $200 off at Wal-Mart.
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/25/select-walmart-stores-offering-100-credit-toward-3ds-with-old-d/
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/25/select-walmart-stores-offering-100-credit-toward-3ds-with-old-d/
macusersince5
Mar 23, 04:10 PM
this is awesome!!! you know sharing of information can and usually does go both ways:apple::cool:
bigjobby
Apr 12, 06:26 PM
I've downloaded the update - how do I get ical and Outlook to sync?
I can't get this to work either even when the correct sync services box is checked. :confused:
I can't get this to work either even when the correct sync services box is checked. :confused:
fishmoose
Oct 6, 01:13 PM
Because now Android with a range of sizes is eating iPhone sales.
Go into a Best Buy and look at all the Androids with larger screens, and some with smaller screens and lower prices. Apple needs to compete with that...
:confused:
I'd stop to think about what you're saying before you speak. Maybe check the stats from anytime this year.
The iPhone does not have a majority of the share in the smartphone market.
As of Q1 RIM had a commanding lead over iPhone; http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/06/apples_iphone_market_share_three_times_greater_than_android_in_us.html
Other more recent reports show'd RIM slipping, but still higher than iOS. This one also show Nokia as having an even greater lead than both.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apple-iphone-smartphone-market-share-surges-rim-slips/34181
And the MOST recent data (as of yesterday) has Android beating iOS; http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/05/android-passes-blackberry-and-iphone-among-recent-smartphone-purchases/
"Fail"? HA, Hardly. :rolleyes:
Well, Android is on a lot of handsets sure but is a wide majority of handsets selling or is it a few top of the line phones?
Also iPhone is still bigger than Android worldwide.
Go into a Best Buy and look at all the Androids with larger screens, and some with smaller screens and lower prices. Apple needs to compete with that...
:confused:
I'd stop to think about what you're saying before you speak. Maybe check the stats from anytime this year.
The iPhone does not have a majority of the share in the smartphone market.
As of Q1 RIM had a commanding lead over iPhone; http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/06/apples_iphone_market_share_three_times_greater_than_android_in_us.html
Other more recent reports show'd RIM slipping, but still higher than iOS. This one also show Nokia as having an even greater lead than both.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apple-iphone-smartphone-market-share-surges-rim-slips/34181
And the MOST recent data (as of yesterday) has Android beating iOS; http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/05/android-passes-blackberry-and-iphone-among-recent-smartphone-purchases/
"Fail"? HA, Hardly. :rolleyes:
Well, Android is on a lot of handsets sure but is a wide majority of handsets selling or is it a few top of the line phones?
Also iPhone is still bigger than Android worldwide.
more...
153957
Sep 1, 09:07 AM
Apple has a history of that... making their OS'es run faster than the previous one on the same hardware. At least that's what my experience has been with Panther, Tiger and Leopard preview.
Or they make the first releases fast, and then with each minor upgrade slow the system down a tiny bit and then when the next major one comes around everything seems faster the before..
or it might have to do with system caches and other things that are not yet bogged down because of extensive usage..
Or they make the first releases fast, and then with each minor upgrade slow the system down a tiny bit and then when the next major one comes around everything seems faster the before..
or it might have to do with system caches and other things that are not yet bogged down because of extensive usage..
mercyjan1985
Nov 2, 03:56 AM
Hi,
you already use to card....
you already use to card....
more...
MisterMe
Sep 14, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
timmillwood
Oct 10, 03:18 PM
do you think these updated macbooks will have a true video card and not an intergrated one? :confused:
intergrated...
..REMEMBER..
...The Macbook is a budget machine if you want somthing better, ie having intergrated graphics, get a Macbook Pro
intergrated...
..REMEMBER..
...The Macbook is a budget machine if you want somthing better, ie having intergrated graphics, get a Macbook Pro
more...
Roessnakhan
Apr 19, 12:47 PM
+1
I had such a great mental image:eek:
Its like someone shaking an expensive Etch-A-Sketch
I had such a great mental image:eek:
Its like someone shaking an expensive Etch-A-Sketch
Goldinboy17
Mar 24, 09:04 PM
great deal cause ipad 2 is only about 5% faster in real life.. nnot worth the mony
Yeah, it has twice the amount of RAM but it's not like I intend on using it for much more than streaming and light word processing.
Yeah, it has twice the amount of RAM but it's not like I intend on using it for much more than streaming and light word processing.
more...
StealthRider
Sep 14, 06:00 PM
Yeah, I get to have my wisdom teeth out next Thursday, so it's anesthesia for me too!
Although...this should be ok...because my step-grandfather founded the anesthesia department at Cincinnati Children's. So...the current head of department is personally putting me under. I'm expecting a great nights sleep after that...
Although...this should be ok...because my step-grandfather founded the anesthesia department at Cincinnati Children's. So...the current head of department is personally putting me under. I'm expecting a great nights sleep after that...
gatepc
May 2, 02:55 PM
Performance note: just thought someone might want to know what kinda performance I getting.
Computer: 2010 i7 15" macbook pro
Res: 1680x1050
Graphics settings ultra ( highest it goes )
perfectly playable it only starts to stutter under heavy battle scenes and you can fix that by dropping back down to high settings.
the only thing that was not set to ultra is the textures which were set correctly according to SC2 for a 512vram gpu
also its perfectly playable with everything set to high on the native res of a 24" LED ACD 1920x1200
Computer: 2010 i7 15" macbook pro
Res: 1680x1050
Graphics settings ultra ( highest it goes )
perfectly playable it only starts to stutter under heavy battle scenes and you can fix that by dropping back down to high settings.
the only thing that was not set to ultra is the textures which were set correctly according to SC2 for a 512vram gpu
also its perfectly playable with everything set to high on the native res of a 24" LED ACD 1920x1200
more...
Applespider
Sep 17, 12:11 PM
Sadly, I agree. There are other possible explanations, but I'm afraid occam's razor (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) applies here. ;)
Agreed too. Perhaps she said 'hi' outside because she recognised you and was just killing some time before meeting someone. Or she was kinda interested and wanted to check on it - who knows, perhaps if you felt awkward, you said something that really put her off?
Either way, if you've been in twice and both times she's disappeared, that's a definite no-no. Given that generally retail staff are employed to be on the shop floor and if they hang around the stockroom, they get bollocked, it's an avoidance tactic.
If you really want a last chance option, go to the store to buy something (even if it's blank discs), watch the theater for a while beforehand, don't make eye contact if you see her and see what happens. So long as you actually buy something, she shouldn't think you're stalking her and she may come over. But I think it's highly unlikely.
Agreed too. Perhaps she said 'hi' outside because she recognised you and was just killing some time before meeting someone. Or she was kinda interested and wanted to check on it - who knows, perhaps if you felt awkward, you said something that really put her off?
Either way, if you've been in twice and both times she's disappeared, that's a definite no-no. Given that generally retail staff are employed to be on the shop floor and if they hang around the stockroom, they get bollocked, it's an avoidance tactic.
If you really want a last chance option, go to the store to buy something (even if it's blank discs), watch the theater for a while beforehand, don't make eye contact if you see her and see what happens. So long as you actually buy something, she shouldn't think you're stalking her and she may come over. But I think it's highly unlikely.
Vantage Point
Mar 19, 05:49 PM
Tiny discounts like that are why people will buy from places like Amazon since even if the price is identical they save much more on the sales tax.
more...
atlanticza
Apr 13, 08:48 AM
Use AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/AppCleaner/)
jongriff
Oct 6, 11:09 AM
Apps all run in the same format and screen size. Even the new retina display is only an enlargement of the original format, but shown at the higher resolution. Apps running on the iPad run at the native format, or specifically for the iPad format, which is different code.
If Apple introduced a different sized screen, that would be a pain to the installed base and app developer. For this reason, I don't think it is true.
Is it not possible that perhaps you could have a smaller screen with a higher pixel density than the 3G and thus the same resolution in order to prevent this issue?
If Apple introduced a different sized screen, that would be a pain to the installed base and app developer. For this reason, I don't think it is true.
Is it not possible that perhaps you could have a smaller screen with a higher pixel density than the 3G and thus the same resolution in order to prevent this issue?
more...
void
Sep 15, 10:26 PM
I hate to say this but, Intel really designed a good chip. The P4 still has alot of life in it even though the P5 is going to be introduced in 2nd QTR of 2003. The G4 either has to step aside for the Power4 or really get it's act together.
Nermal
Jun 11, 12:41 PM
Why on earth did T-Mobile decide to build out a network that was so strange that no one else isues it and basically phones are going to have custom radios in them to work.
If T-Moblie used more of a stardard frequency, they would be running MILLIONS of iPhones right now even though you can't buy one from T-Mobile.
Operators need to buy rights to spectrum, and there are practical limits to the number of operators that can use a particular chunk of spectrum. T-Mobile can't use the more "standard" frequencies because they don't have licenses for them, and additional licenses may not be available.
Of course, if you really want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile, you can get an unlocked one and run it on GSM.
If T-Moblie used more of a stardard frequency, they would be running MILLIONS of iPhones right now even though you can't buy one from T-Mobile.
Operators need to buy rights to spectrum, and there are practical limits to the number of operators that can use a particular chunk of spectrum. T-Mobile can't use the more "standard" frequencies because they don't have licenses for them, and additional licenses may not be available.
Of course, if you really want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile, you can get an unlocked one and run it on GSM.
bluebomberman
Feb 28, 01:24 AM
Single source hardware is an asset to server reliability, not a detriment. Compare linux uptimes to AIX, Solaris, or HPUX, and there's no contest. Having 1 company on the hook for everything helps make things run way more smoothly. The trend towards linux in the data center is a detriment that mirrors wall street, with short term costs overruling long term benefit.
That's debatable. Apple's reputation in business/enterprise support has never been stellar. Meanwhile, Google literally Velcro together their server farms, using cheap hardware that is vulnerable to failure at single points but is collectively resilient and efficient.
These are extreme ends of the spectrum that I'm using as examples, though.
That's debatable. Apple's reputation in business/enterprise support has never been stellar. Meanwhile, Google literally Velcro together their server farms, using cheap hardware that is vulnerable to failure at single points but is collectively resilient and efficient.
These are extreme ends of the spectrum that I'm using as examples, though.
yg17
Apr 25, 11:54 AM
Rich bastard who deserves to be shot 300 times in the heart.. Yes, I hate rich people... I am glad many died in WWII and other wars.. at least they can't take their money which is worthless anyway to heaven.
Given your posting history in PRSI, I'm guessing you're glad that it was so many Jews who died in WWII? After all, they supposedly have all the money. :rolleyes:
Given your posting history in PRSI, I'm guessing you're glad that it was so many Jews who died in WWII? After all, they supposedly have all the money. :rolleyes:
JDDavis
Mar 6, 06:40 AM
Apples and Oranges.
Same two shots just lit differently with off camera flash. Not sure I necessarily like either, just thought I'd post them. Figurative and literal contrast, I guess. Hopefully next weekend will be nice and I can get outside.
Same two shots just lit differently with off camera flash. Not sure I necessarily like either, just thought I'd post them. Figurative and literal contrast, I guess. Hopefully next weekend will be nice and I can get outside.
ptysell
Mar 23, 01:53 PM
[QUOTE=HobeSoundDarryl;12235279]"Now with airplay" seems too far down the benefit list to drive many sales of TVs. I doubt it would be touted in any mainstream way- just as another line item of something else the TV can do. I don't picture people choosing to buy new TVs because they come with that particular benefit.[QUOTE]
Apparently you don't understand just how many iOS devices apples has sold.
Apparently you don't understand just how many iOS devices apples has sold.
dukebound85
Apr 24, 04:42 AM
now i cant seem to find myself on the MR team lol
Zephi
Mar 22, 01:04 PM
I hate those. Or when I hear people talking about it. How do they expect that to do anything?
Making them be more competitive on prices, or something? Its not that they make hardly any profit on petrol, you know. I assume its a helluva profit, and the prices depend on some kind of lobby decisions, thats for sure. So if you dont complain about the amount of money you pay for a litre, why would they lower it?
Making them be more competitive on prices, or something? Its not that they make hardly any profit on petrol, you know. I assume its a helluva profit, and the prices depend on some kind of lobby decisions, thats for sure. So if you dont complain about the amount of money you pay for a litre, why would they lower it?
No comments:
Post a Comment