Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:15 PM
Whoa!! I feel a lot better that MBP is not getting CPU upgrade anytime soon. I don't want my month-old MBP getting obsolete in another month.I will be obsolete. Merom is next month.
:DRS:Church
Aug 23, 08:31 PM
there goes all those iTunes sales:rolleyes:
mwayne85
Apr 22, 02:57 PM
AMD Fusion w/RadeonHD 6xxx and Price drop to $799 for the 11" and $899 for 13.3" - now that would send the sales skyrocketing.
$899 for the 13? A $400 price drop is a bit of stretch, don't you think? :D
$899 for the 13? A $400 price drop is a bit of stretch, don't you think? :D
cozmot
Feb 27, 04:53 AM
Having been bitten numerous times by McAfee, I never believe their press releases.
Way back, I subscribed to their virus and firewall software. I tested the firewall, and it worked. Until they updated it to a slicker looking interface. Some sixth sense made me test it again, and bingo, my computer was exposed. McAfee customer "support" was not interested. They had my annual subscription, and that was all they wanted.
After ripping all McAfee code out of my PC, I was dismayed to find that my employer signed up for McAfee products.
Months and months of slow PC, followed by bricking thousands of employee PCs with their encryption-at-rest software.
I, too, once used their product when it was a little puppy. It was fast and frisky and did its job. Then it started growing and became a suite of solutions. And it got fat and slow and turned into a beast. I finally slayed the beast -- and others too who had let these puppies-grown-beasties into their homes -- and eventually went Mac. No animals in my home now.
Way back, I subscribed to their virus and firewall software. I tested the firewall, and it worked. Until they updated it to a slicker looking interface. Some sixth sense made me test it again, and bingo, my computer was exposed. McAfee customer "support" was not interested. They had my annual subscription, and that was all they wanted.
After ripping all McAfee code out of my PC, I was dismayed to find that my employer signed up for McAfee products.
Months and months of slow PC, followed by bricking thousands of employee PCs with their encryption-at-rest software.
I, too, once used their product when it was a little puppy. It was fast and frisky and did its job. Then it started growing and became a suite of solutions. And it got fat and slow and turned into a beast. I finally slayed the beast -- and others too who had let these puppies-grown-beasties into their homes -- and eventually went Mac. No animals in my home now.
tigres
Apr 22, 02:25 PM
I personally could care less about this upgrade. I have have been more than satisfied with my ultimate 13" w/4g and 256 SSD. Handles all of my needs I.E. work/VMware/ all the other bells and whistles; and even have been doing my Xcode projects on it.
Seriously, I see no need or reason to want a faster more reliable machine for it's purpose; other than saying it's got an older chip inside. Maybe next year when many thunderbolt devices are in the wild, but again no biggie for me.
I may be in the minority, but for once I am very satisfied with this revision over my old Rev B.
To each his own I suppose.:)
Seriously, I see no need or reason to want a faster more reliable machine for it's purpose; other than saying it's got an older chip inside. Maybe next year when many thunderbolt devices are in the wild, but again no biggie for me.
I may be in the minority, but for once I am very satisfied with this revision over my old Rev B.
To each his own I suppose.:)
roland.g
Aug 28, 03:07 PM
Well I think most people are like me, they want their money to go as far as it can go. Right now $2000 will get you a decent 20" 32bit processor iMac. A few weeks from now (or hours! who knows! excitement!) it will get you a decent 20" 64bit processor iMac. I got my iBook about a week before they announced a speed bump (did not know enough about Mac culture to know to wait) and it pissed me off. Not gonna happen to me again!
Hey I said I too have been waiting - since June - to replace my 6 1/2 year old G4. Don't even have iWeb or Tiger. At this point, I almost want to wait to get Leopard pre-installed on a Santa Rosa motherboard. It's a vicious circle. So sue me for being a little bored while I wait for revisions. And speaking of, can we stop the should I buy now or wait threads. Find one and read it.
Hey I said I too have been waiting - since June - to replace my 6 1/2 year old G4. Don't even have iWeb or Tiger. At this point, I almost want to wait to get Leopard pre-installed on a Santa Rosa motherboard. It's a vicious circle. So sue me for being a little bored while I wait for revisions. And speaking of, can we stop the should I buy now or wait threads. Find one and read it.
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
Equitek
Apr 22, 11:53 AM
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
I'd have pulled the trigger on a 13" MPB if screen resolution was higher... But now I'll likely be happier with an 11" Air with ThunderBolt. Maybe I can get a 500GB SSD in there by the time it's released, then I'll have all I want (for now).
I'd have pulled the trigger on a 13" MPB if screen resolution was higher... But now I'll likely be happier with an 11" Air with ThunderBolt. Maybe I can get a 500GB SSD in there by the time it's released, then I'll have all I want (for now).
freiheit
Sep 9, 05:20 PM
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm at a point (thanks to apps like Parallels) where I am ready to replace both my PC and my G5 PowerMac with a single system. I can't really justify the cost of the MacPro (even the low-end is over $2K) but if I'm to be running both Mac and Windows simultaneously, 4GB RAM capacity in the iMac would be very much appreciated. 3GB would do, but the cost difference between the 2GB and 3GB option right now is extremely high ($575 more to go from 2GB to 3GB, not $575 total for 3GB) which puts the 17" iMac right in the price range of the low-end MacPro.
Did anyone else also notice the verbage in the "how much RAM do I need" section on the iMac store page that says you can choose a "one SO-DIMM" option to keep 2 slots free? Why do I not see this as an option? There's 2x512MB, 2x1GB and 1x2GB+1x1GB.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm at a point (thanks to apps like Parallels) where I am ready to replace both my PC and my G5 PowerMac with a single system. I can't really justify the cost of the MacPro (even the low-end is over $2K) but if I'm to be running both Mac and Windows simultaneously, 4GB RAM capacity in the iMac would be very much appreciated. 3GB would do, but the cost difference between the 2GB and 3GB option right now is extremely high ($575 more to go from 2GB to 3GB, not $575 total for 3GB) which puts the 17" iMac right in the price range of the low-end MacPro.
Did anyone else also notice the verbage in the "how much RAM do I need" section on the iMac store page that says you can choose a "one SO-DIMM" option to keep 2 slots free? Why do I not see this as an option? There's 2x512MB, 2x1GB and 1x2GB+1x1GB.
twilson
Apr 29, 03:39 AM
Nintendo is gonna kill them in the Console race. They need to come out with the XBox 720 within 6 months of Nintendo's new machine!
Haha, you're funny. I'm no fan of the Xbox, but you've got to be kidding if you think Nintendo is ever really going to kill Sony/MS. Nintendo may have sold the most consoles, but most main virtually unused, cos the Wii is woefully under-powered, propped up by the same old kiddy franchises and once you get past the new gimmicks gets boring fast.
I hardly know anyone with a Wii, that still uses it. The same will happen to the 3DS.
Haha, you're funny. I'm no fan of the Xbox, but you've got to be kidding if you think Nintendo is ever really going to kill Sony/MS. Nintendo may have sold the most consoles, but most main virtually unused, cos the Wii is woefully under-powered, propped up by the same old kiddy franchises and once you get past the new gimmicks gets boring fast.
I hardly know anyone with a Wii, that still uses it. The same will happen to the 3DS.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 23, 05:22 PM
I was driving home for lunch today and thought "I wonder what ever happened with that Creative suit? I bet Apple will settle."
Well, now i know!
Well, now i know!
GreatOne08
Sep 9, 05:27 PM
Those new iMac are looking better and better. Need to save up now.:D
cube
Apr 22, 12:34 PM
The MacBook Pro design hasn't changed since 2008. I'd bet money that the next time they do a redesign an optical drive won't be present.
If you make the MBP thinner, it will just be a big MBA.
The right way is to make bigger MBAs, not to make thinner MBPs.
A more powerful competitor to 15" Zacate netbooks.
If you make the MBP thinner, it will just be a big MBA.
The right way is to make bigger MBAs, not to make thinner MBPs.
A more powerful competitor to 15" Zacate netbooks.
j-traxx
Apr 11, 11:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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)
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
if you have marantz speakers...... you have 40 dollars.
The marantz one is, you have to pay $40 to uPgrade firmware to get AirPlay working at all. At least you did with early versions, not sure about current versions, AirPlay may work without upgrade with those.
if you have marantz speakers...... you have 40 dollars.
Evangelion
Sep 9, 01:18 PM
Well if it gives you 64 bit memory addressing then it certainly is a newer chip
64bit addressing arrives with the new cpu. so the point is that napa64 isn't really new, it just uses merom instead of yonah.
64bit addressing arrives with the new cpu. so the point is that napa64 isn't really new, it just uses merom instead of yonah.
hamis92
Apr 25, 01:27 PM
If this involves matte displays that don't look like they've been retrofitted, I can't wait to see what they have in store for us :cool:
iRobby
Apr 14, 12:01 PM
Does this mean I should hold off on getting a 27"iMac this year and wait for the 2012 Refresh instead of the 2011 Refresh? I assume the Sandy Bridge is going in the 2011 Refresh
Silentwave
Sep 13, 10:13 PM
There are a lot of sound business reasons for Apple to release an iPhone. But the biggest reason is that Steve must have a cell phone and you know he probably hates the industrial design and functionality.
I agree. That's our steve all right :D
I agree. That's our steve all right :D
adamfilip
Sep 10, 08:34 PM
I wondering how many people are now going to put off buying a Mac Pro and wait for a faster Kentsfield :confused:
The Mac Pros a fast as it is now, Kentsfield would smash the previous benchmarks but a fair margin.
Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro
id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do
The Mac Pros a fast as it is now, Kentsfield would smash the previous benchmarks but a fair margin.
Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro
id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do
Littleodie914
Sep 13, 08:56 PM
Hmm... Does this really count as front page news? :confused:
Not to say it isn't cool, but we're still talking about an artist rendition based on a reliable source... Not the iPhone "revealed".
Just my 2 pennies. ;)
Not to say it isn't cool, but we're still talking about an artist rendition based on a reliable source... Not the iPhone "revealed".
Just my 2 pennies. ;)
Zeldain
Mar 22, 01:11 PM
What about the Mac Pro? It's way past due, would that come first, before the iMac?
Kingsly
Sep 14, 07:15 PM
Right, the invitation didn't have a bit Aperture logo on it, either. ;)
I think it makes perfect sense to release a C2D or speed-bumped CD MBP at this event. I mean, it is a pro event after all.
I think it makes perfect sense to release a C2D or speed-bumped CD MBP at this event. I mean, it is a pro event after all.
kresh
Oct 27, 07:57 AM
Good for them. If Apple needs to get its house in order then the more information the better. Time for change and it ain't gonna be cheap.
But this particular crap from Greenpeace has already been debunked.
They have gone from a respectable environmentalist group to a militant anti-business lobby.
I am Green, but I am not Greenpeace!
link at /. where this has been gone over a while ago, what a bogus Greenpeace report: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198431&cid=16258305
But this particular crap from Greenpeace has already been debunked.
They have gone from a respectable environmentalist group to a militant anti-business lobby.
I am Green, but I am not Greenpeace!
link at /. where this has been gone over a while ago, what a bogus Greenpeace report: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198431&cid=16258305
davelanger
Mar 30, 01:39 PM
Yes, you know what an "app store" means if you know what an "app" means.
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
Apple didnt TM application or app they TM appstore.
I dont see why people are trying to argue the wrong point.
MS can call it something, I and others have given different names they could use. MS has the marketplace, hell that is a generic name as well. Should apple sue them for that?
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
Apple didnt TM application or app they TM appstore.
I dont see why people are trying to argue the wrong point.
MS can call it something, I and others have given different names they could use. MS has the marketplace, hell that is a generic name as well. Should apple sue them for that?
No comments:
Post a Comment