kiljoy616
Mar 24, 09:51 PM
AMD Radeon HD 6970
Holy guacamole! :D
Holy guacamole! :D
QCassidy352
Aug 29, 05:13 PM
this is Think Secret we're talking about. I don't believe a word out of their lying mouths.
wordoflife
Nov 23, 06:40 PM
Last thing I paid for was the fair to get on the public bus to get to school for $0.85.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Bucharest_HESS_bus_1.jpg
That's not the city bus I took, I just Googled "public bus"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Bucharest_HESS_bus_1.jpg
That's not the city bus I took, I just Googled "public bus"
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
designed
Mar 23, 11:36 AM
33 mins per frame with the iMac i7? That seems awfully fast. 25k PPD. That looks like the time of a 3Ghz 8 core previous generation Mac Pro.
Actually I'm using a Mac Pro with a 8-core 2,26GHz setup.
Actually I'm using a Mac Pro with a 8-core 2,26GHz setup.
X-Z
Feb 22, 11:19 AM
Where can I get that date time thingy for my iPad!
Here you go: http://cj-caty.deviantart.com/art/Typophone-4-for-iPad-195872777
Here you go: http://cj-caty.deviantart.com/art/Typophone-4-for-iPad-195872777
generik
Sep 7, 08:43 AM
So I guess Minis will get Core 2 in 2007?
MCIowaRulz
Apr 20, 09:23 AM
So close... I'm going to finally upgrade from the dual 867Mhz G4 "Mirrored Door" from and am also running Tiger.
I was using it daily till 2009 when I received a hand me down PC from 2006 in my sig which is getting me buy until the new iMac comes out.
I was using it daily till 2009 when I received a hand me down PC from 2006 in my sig which is getting me buy until the new iMac comes out.
kilidar
Mar 28, 03:07 AM
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
its got to run on the apple tv, airplay has lag, the game runs on the atv and the ios devices are controllers. ATV3?
its got to run on the apple tv, airplay has lag, the game runs on the atv and the ios devices are controllers. ATV3?
iJimmy
Feb 8, 11:08 AM
http://gallery.me.com/jimmy.nguyen/100033/IMG_3605/web.jpg?ver=12965306720001
Spica
Sep 7, 09:55 AM
I just bought a brand new core solo from a reseller 4 days ago!!! Is there any remedy for me?
This sucks.
This sucks.
pyramid6
Apr 26, 01:29 PM
It mostly has to do with if it is confusing. Apple has a trade mark on "App Store" to sell applications through an online store. Amazon is using "Appstore" and is selling applications through an online store. Apple has a pretty strong case that Amazon is infringing on their trademark. If Amazon used "Appstore" for a chain of tire rotating store, Amazon could probably be in the clear. As it stands they are too close in intended use. Microsofts strategy is to invalidate the trademark. It's up to the USPTO to decide on the trademark.
SMM
Nov 15, 08:47 AM
How can this get negative votes? In fact, how do a lot of perfectly benign threads get negative votes? Are there just members out there who vote negative on everything?
weckart
Apr 11, 06:53 AM
That said, VW/Audi`s DSG semi auto`s are excellent.
Agreed and it has transformed my view of autos. I can't change as slickly as the DSG manages in my Audi. That being said, it still needs a bit of help coming into roundabouts or sharp bends and I miss having a biting point when stopping at traffic lights uphill. Fuel economy is as good as a manual, surprisingly enough.
Currently driving an auto Mercedes, whilst mine is in the workshop. Nowhere near as slick.
Agreed and it has transformed my view of autos. I can't change as slickly as the DSG manages in my Audi. That being said, it still needs a bit of help coming into roundabouts or sharp bends and I miss having a biting point when stopping at traffic lights uphill. Fuel economy is as good as a manual, surprisingly enough.
Currently driving an auto Mercedes, whilst mine is in the workshop. Nowhere near as slick.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 11, 04:55 PM
I don't think people are pumping it up at all. I personally think that people who can't drive a standard transmission, are just lazy (and that goes for my mother, and her habit of doing her makeup while driving). People only get autos, because they don't want to have to "inconvenience" themselves with pushing down on the clutch and throwing the car into the next gear; because doing so requires them to stop shoving food down their face, or to get of the damn phone. I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad, and I recently took my standard transmission accord to chicago and drove in stop and go traffic for over two hours, and it was not as annoying as some would make it out to be. People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
-Don
dealing with it once is annoying but if you have to deal with that traffic every day you start to really consider going automatic. While I lived in Dallas and driving threw morning and evening rush hour every day in my manual I really was debating about giving up the manual and going auto because it was annoying putting up with it every day. Once or twice a week I would never of considered it but dealing with it every day I would go to work really made me consider it.
I was honestly shocked at myself when I realized that when I love driving a manual and have been driving one since I was 15. I was around 25 at the time. That should give you some reason.
My brother gave up an manual to go auto because he was dealing with traffic around his school and lot and just did not want to deal with it. he has no regrets about it. Of my family only my sister never learned out to drive a manual tranny and she has zero interest in wanting to do it.
As for me I still am driving a manual and I am pretty sure I will try to make my next car a manual tranny as one thing I can not stand is lazy automatic. I like being able to drop to a lower gear for more power when I want to. It makes passing a hell of a lot easier.
-Don
dealing with it once is annoying but if you have to deal with that traffic every day you start to really consider going automatic. While I lived in Dallas and driving threw morning and evening rush hour every day in my manual I really was debating about giving up the manual and going auto because it was annoying putting up with it every day. Once or twice a week I would never of considered it but dealing with it every day I would go to work really made me consider it.
I was honestly shocked at myself when I realized that when I love driving a manual and have been driving one since I was 15. I was around 25 at the time. That should give you some reason.
My brother gave up an manual to go auto because he was dealing with traffic around his school and lot and just did not want to deal with it. he has no regrets about it. Of my family only my sister never learned out to drive a manual tranny and she has zero interest in wanting to do it.
As for me I still am driving a manual and I am pretty sure I will try to make my next car a manual tranny as one thing I can not stand is lazy automatic. I like being able to drop to a lower gear for more power when I want to. It makes passing a hell of a lot easier.
ipodG8TR
Aug 17, 01:28 PM
The 1st Wave and AltNation channels are some of the biggest drivers for my iTunes purchases actually. "Oh, yeah! I remember that song back in college! [writes note on hand while swerving through traffic]"
Exactly what I do -- listen to Sirius in the car and look at the display whenever I hear a great old song or something new I like. When I get to work, I launch iTunes and add the songs to my shopping cart. Then I purchase when I get home and finish checking out this weeks new releases!
Exactly what I do -- listen to Sirius in the car and look at the display whenever I hear a great old song or something new I like. When I get to work, I launch iTunes and add the songs to my shopping cart. Then I purchase when I get home and finish checking out this weeks new releases!
SPUY767
Sep 7, 06:46 AM
Judging by the ratings, I get the sensation that some of us here don't like disney movies. Anyhow, Apple's not really trying to break into any new markets with this, nor are they trying to be revolutionary. They already have an incredibly robust content distribution system, and it costs them next to nothing to host these movies on it. If people download them, great, if not, so what. But seriously, for the price, these mofos better be Hi-Def!
imac_japan
Apr 2, 04:39 AM
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
You have some good points here....but the basic arguement is how to survive in the future - How to grow the business....Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, the ipod is going to have too many similar players. So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
You have some good points here....but the basic arguement is how to survive in the future - How to grow the business....Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, the ipod is going to have too many similar players. So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
sjp5317
Mar 23, 09:11 AM
I wonder if they'd give a revamped Classic Airplay capabilities... in addition to being the pocket media player we all know and love make it an addition to your other devices as a bulk mobile storage capable of pushing audio/video out to Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, etc. I'd buy another one then. I mean, I have a terabyte Toshiba drive that i carry in my laptop case, but that requires the USB cable. Who wants to dongle their drive?
dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
wordoflife
Nov 25, 06:30 PM
Yeah, I know, They are very expensive sunglasses that I don't feel comfortable just "tossing into a gym bag or suitcase."
It feels awesome to have every god damn person here giving you crap about your last purchase.
What if I gave everyone who purchases McDonalds a "fat@$$" or anyone with a nice car a "rich snob."
Gosh, Is everyone here so desensitized towards expensive things, That if they break them they just don't care?
I bought a protective case to put something I invested a lot of money in, And IF anyone cared to read my replies to your jerky comments, I explained that I plan on putting a SECOND pair of glasses in the case, Which would cost 400-500 dollars, Which is a great amount of money to me, So I don't want to break them.
I find it repulsing that so many people on here find my latest purchase SO DISTURBING and bothering to them that they feel they need to make me feel bad about it.
Happy Thanksgiving. Jerk.
I'm not going to give you **** for your last purchase, but wouldn't one of these do the job?
http://www.best4glasses.co.uk/images/products/free_case_a.jpg
Anyways, I don't really care. Btw, why do you center your posts?
_________________________________________________________________
My last purchase was renting Karate Kid in HD for $4.99. Loved it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Karate_kid_2010.jpg
It feels awesome to have every god damn person here giving you crap about your last purchase.
What if I gave everyone who purchases McDonalds a "fat@$$" or anyone with a nice car a "rich snob."
Gosh, Is everyone here so desensitized towards expensive things, That if they break them they just don't care?
I bought a protective case to put something I invested a lot of money in, And IF anyone cared to read my replies to your jerky comments, I explained that I plan on putting a SECOND pair of glasses in the case, Which would cost 400-500 dollars, Which is a great amount of money to me, So I don't want to break them.
I find it repulsing that so many people on here find my latest purchase SO DISTURBING and bothering to them that they feel they need to make me feel bad about it.
Happy Thanksgiving. Jerk.
I'm not going to give you **** for your last purchase, but wouldn't one of these do the job?
http://www.best4glasses.co.uk/images/products/free_case_a.jpg
Anyways, I don't really care. Btw, why do you center your posts?
_________________________________________________________________
My last purchase was renting Karate Kid in HD for $4.99. Loved it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Karate_kid_2010.jpg
MistaBungle
Jan 11, 05:16 PM
There's something in the air...
planes shipping iPhones to Canada?
planes shipping iPhones to Canada?
mrjain
Jan 12, 12:47 AM
Maybe Apple's poster actually says more but we can't see the bottom?
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
I'm crying right now, that was funny as hell.
mrj
- - -
http://celestri.org
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
I'm crying right now, that was funny as hell.
mrj
- - -
http://celestri.org
diamond.g
Mar 27, 01:09 PM
All Intel machines going forward with the new Sandy Bridge CPU architecture will be EFI boot like Mac has been for some time. That probably explains why Apple will support off-the-shelf PC GPUs now. :apple:
Curious, where is that from?
Curious, where is that from?
Veinticinco
Mar 23, 04:24 AM
they won't ! iPod classic is the best selling for
I very much doubt that.
Unless of course you're actually a SVP in Apple Sales and are speaking from a position of authority :rolleyes:
I very much doubt that.
Unless of course you're actually a SVP in Apple Sales and are speaking from a position of authority :rolleyes: