iGary
Jul 24, 03:19 PM
I'll take two, please.
SchneiderMan
Sep 17, 02:59 PM
I love these! I have them in gray as well.
http://content.backcountry.com/images/items/medium/TNF/TNF4903/BK.jpg
http://content.backcountry.com/images/items/medium/TNF/TNF4903/BK.jpg
wordoflife
May 1, 09:55 PM
Looks like he had an iPhone.
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 15, 03:11 PM
Goes against Steve Jobs saying Lion was shipping this summer. What is your source ?
Until Apple says it's delayed, I'll believe Apple when they say it ships this summer.
OK, here is a historic example:
"Apple missed Leopard's release time frame as originally announced by Apple�s CEO Steve Jobs. When first discussed in June Jobs had stated that Apple intended to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007. A year later, this was amended to Spring 2007; however on 12 April Apple issued a statement that its release would be delayed until October 2007 because of the development of the iPhone."
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard)
I do not believe that Adobe, Microsoft and other big companies need just a few months to make their apps Lion-compatible. Will Apple release Lion, if major companies do not support it? Unlikely. Q1 2012 is more likely.
Until Apple says it's delayed, I'll believe Apple when they say it ships this summer.
OK, here is a historic example:
"Apple missed Leopard's release time frame as originally announced by Apple�s CEO Steve Jobs. When first discussed in June Jobs had stated that Apple intended to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007. A year later, this was amended to Spring 2007; however on 12 April Apple issued a statement that its release would be delayed until October 2007 because of the development of the iPhone."
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard)
I do not believe that Adobe, Microsoft and other big companies need just a few months to make their apps Lion-compatible. Will Apple release Lion, if major companies do not support it? Unlikely. Q1 2012 is more likely.
more...
Rad99004
May 3, 11:43 PM
I wonder why they've moved it to a later date?
I would guess part of the reason is the "White" Iphone was just released and they are hoping they can unload them all.
All I can say the new one better have a 4" screen, 8Meg Camera, More memory, IOS 5 and a faster processor. What else did I miss :)
Edit: added 4G to wish list
This is almost the standard specification for most Android phones any more so I don't think I'm asking for too much.
I would guess part of the reason is the "White" Iphone was just released and they are hoping they can unload them all.
All I can say the new one better have a 4" screen, 8Meg Camera, More memory, IOS 5 and a faster processor. What else did I miss :)
Edit: added 4G to wish list
This is almost the standard specification for most Android phones any more so I don't think I'm asking for too much.
Taank
Apr 25, 03:21 PM
Anti glare is not matt. The old imacs with matt screens were impossible to calibrate and had terrible issues with 'white-out'. The glass screens are a massive improvement and anyone with half a brain cell can sort their set up so that glare is a non issue.
Says the guy who must live in an apartment with the shades drawn, or his parents basement, or some other wonderful computer dungeon.
I am surrounded by windows, wonderful views, and don't want to close all my blinds and and be in the dark so that I can use my awesome reflective computer monitor. I appreciate that the glass may be wonderful for some, but understand that it is awful for others. The option for a matte screen is logical. Open your mind, respect the views of others, and stop being a tool.
Take what I say with a grain of salt though, I don't even have half a brain cell.
Says the guy who must live in an apartment with the shades drawn, or his parents basement, or some other wonderful computer dungeon.
I am surrounded by windows, wonderful views, and don't want to close all my blinds and and be in the dark so that I can use my awesome reflective computer monitor. I appreciate that the glass may be wonderful for some, but understand that it is awful for others. The option for a matte screen is logical. Open your mind, respect the views of others, and stop being a tool.
Take what I say with a grain of salt though, I don't even have half a brain cell.
more...
seanpholman
Mar 16, 10:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
About 40 in line now at SCP.
Ahh, sounds pointless then. Word has gotten out.
--Sean
About 40 in line now at SCP.
Ahh, sounds pointless then. Word has gotten out.
--Sean
RWinOR
May 3, 07:59 AM
Looks like an IMac upgrade in our future.
more...
WildCowboy
Oct 18, 04:51 PM
Still not sure where you're getting this "less than half the total" figure... :confused:
This quarter, Macs accounted for $2.213 billion in revenue. iPods accounted for $1.559 billion, plus another $452 million in music-related revenue, for a total of $2.011 billion. So, even without counting Mac peripherals and software, music revenue was less than Mac revenue.
Last quarter, Mac revenue was $1.866 billion, while iPods sold $1.497 billion, plus another $457 million in other music-related revenue, for a total of $1.954 billion for the music end.
This quarter, Macs accounted for $2.213 billion in revenue. iPods accounted for $1.559 billion, plus another $452 million in music-related revenue, for a total of $2.011 billion. So, even without counting Mac peripherals and software, music revenue was less than Mac revenue.
Last quarter, Mac revenue was $1.866 billion, while iPods sold $1.497 billion, plus another $457 million in other music-related revenue, for a total of $1.954 billion for the music end.
cocky jeremy
Jan 26, 01:01 AM
http://www.nutritionexpress.com/images/products/9Q/9Q-00017-X500.gif
I have one of these. Very nice for protein shakes.
I have one of these. Very nice for protein shakes.
more...
bigjohn
Oct 23, 10:31 AM
they're just trying to prevent you buying one copy of vista and spreading it to every system in your house, including virtual ones on existing systems.
that said, who reads the EULA anyway, i have better things to do with my time
that said, who reads the EULA anyway, i have better things to do with my time
krzyglue
Apr 16, 08:04 PM
Then what were you trying to prove?
All the browsers do it. ChromeOS is just a browser for a normal consumer.
What were you actually trying to prove? What was your point? Sure you can ignore my comments if you dont have an answer. Fair enough.
Uhh for starters, Safari.app doesn't.
I can't tell you how much of ChromeOS is original Google code, but it is a full-fledged Linux operating system, with a full window manager (X11 I presume).
Calling it just a browser is a bit disingenuous.
On-topic: I quite like the overall new UI, suddenly makes what I'm looking at right new (10.6) feel dated. :(
All the browsers do it. ChromeOS is just a browser for a normal consumer.
What were you actually trying to prove? What was your point? Sure you can ignore my comments if you dont have an answer. Fair enough.
Uhh for starters, Safari.app doesn't.
I can't tell you how much of ChromeOS is original Google code, but it is a full-fledged Linux operating system, with a full window manager (X11 I presume).
Calling it just a browser is a bit disingenuous.
On-topic: I quite like the overall new UI, suddenly makes what I'm looking at right new (10.6) feel dated. :(
more...
wmk461
Jan 30, 05:39 PM
Interesting, considering there are only 194 recognized countries on Earth. Which planet are the other 6 countries located on?
Well after looking it up several reports state that about 130 countries have US occupied bases that are active... The point is we are overextended.
"It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.
These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.
For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
Well after looking it up several reports state that about 130 countries have US occupied bases that are active... The point is we are overextended.
"It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.
These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.
For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
gnasher729
May 3, 08:20 AM
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
Nobody knows until someone has taken the machines apart. On the previous model, there was very, very, very limited space for the SSD drive; Apple just about managed to squeeze it in, and it was in a location that wasn't easily accessible at all, so adding one yourself was very difficult (the kind of difficult where if you ask how difficult it is then it is too difficult for you).
Nobody knows until someone has taken the machines apart. On the previous model, there was very, very, very limited space for the SSD drive; Apple just about managed to squeeze it in, and it was in a location that wasn't easily accessible at all, so adding one yourself was very difficult (the kind of difficult where if you ask how difficult it is then it is too difficult for you).
more...
AidenShaw
Apr 26, 02:32 PM
Would be a while before we see any 10Gbps SSDs (hard drives will never be that fast)
Drive arrays can easily exceed 10 Gbps - even with spinning hard drives. Today a 2 SSD drive RAID 0 array can hit 10 Gbps with consumer-grade drives.
Single drives faster than TBolt already exist - 12 Gbps SSD drive (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveduo/) 48 Gbps SSD drive (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveoctal/).
TBolt devices haven't even hit the market, but TBolt is already too slow for many uses.
Drive arrays can easily exceed 10 Gbps - even with spinning hard drives. Today a 2 SSD drive RAID 0 array can hit 10 Gbps with consumer-grade drives.
Single drives faster than TBolt already exist - 12 Gbps SSD drive (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveduo/) 48 Gbps SSD drive (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveoctal/).
TBolt devices haven't even hit the market, but TBolt is already too slow for many uses.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 19, 05:05 PM
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
more...
extrafuzzyllama
Sep 15, 08:05 PM
picked up new ink for printer and an enclosure and two hdds
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6171/imagetm.jpg
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6171/imagetm.jpg
nyfliiboy
Apr 12, 09:01 AM
Looks like ill be going to Android.
theBB
Jul 21, 02:56 PM
Let's face it: Apple is a monopoly, but with such a small market share, it is a monopoly that we have freely chosen to deal with. We Mac consumers cannot go to the DOJ and claim we have no alternatives (just because your alternatives suck doesn't mean you don't have them.) If Apple were wildly successful and exceeded this threshold market share, their business model may be interfered with by the government.
First, being a monopoly is not a crime. Using your dominant market power to eliminate competitors in your or other fields could be a crime. It is called "Anti-Trust Act", not "Anti-Monopoly Act."
Yes, Apple is the only supplier if you want to run OSX, but OSX is not a "market." It is one of many operating systems out there. That's like saying Ford is a monopoly, because Ford does not let you buy a Ford from another manufacturer.
First, being a monopoly is not a crime. Using your dominant market power to eliminate competitors in your or other fields could be a crime. It is called "Anti-Trust Act", not "Anti-Monopoly Act."
Yes, Apple is the only supplier if you want to run OSX, but OSX is not a "market." It is one of many operating systems out there. That's like saying Ford is a monopoly, because Ford does not let you buy a Ford from another manufacturer.
mc68k
Oct 20, 07:33 PM
Now I am itching to buy a MP :ptoo bad they dont have a midrange tower with an i5 or i7
Chundles
Jun 6, 01:35 AM
There is a 15 minute window after entering a password for purchase during which you can click "buy" and not be prompted.
Gasu E.
Jul 24, 01:58 PM
As a Mac fan-boy I'd love to think Apple actually picked up sustainable market share, but as an actual technology product manager who does forecasts for a living, I've got to look askew at the data:
* Mac market share was DOWN the previous quarter
* The attributed cause of the share drop the previous quarter was the transition to Intel
* Therefore the previous quarter share drop represented pent-up demand that would rematerialize once the Intel transition stabilized
* Therefore one would expect a corresponding one-time blip UP in the corresponding quarter to resolve the pent-up demand
* And low and behold, the marketshare "increase" just about corresponds to the resolution of the previous quarter's pent-up demand.
In other words, to keep the same long-term share, the current quarter's share would have to temporarily rise to make-up for last quarter's drop.
Sorry, amigos, I'll wait to see next quarter's data before I pop the cork...
* Mac market share was DOWN the previous quarter
* The attributed cause of the share drop the previous quarter was the transition to Intel
* Therefore the previous quarter share drop represented pent-up demand that would rematerialize once the Intel transition stabilized
* Therefore one would expect a corresponding one-time blip UP in the corresponding quarter to resolve the pent-up demand
* And low and behold, the marketshare "increase" just about corresponds to the resolution of the previous quarter's pent-up demand.
In other words, to keep the same long-term share, the current quarter's share would have to temporarily rise to make-up for last quarter's drop.
Sorry, amigos, I'll wait to see next quarter's data before I pop the cork...
twoodcc
Oct 29, 12:32 PM
guess what came into work yesterday
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/9518/screenshot20091029at102.th.png (http://img255.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20091029at102.png/)
dang. will you be folding with it?
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/9518/screenshot20091029at102.th.png (http://img255.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20091029at102.png/)
dang. will you be folding with it?
Popeye206
Apr 28, 10:30 AM
It is interesting to see the 3Gs doing so well. Too bad Apple doesn't make a "light version" of iOS for it so it's snappier again. It was a good phone and for many consumers at $49 or maybe even free someday a great entry level smart phone.
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар