manu chao
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
Funny comment from Engadget:
Q: Why is my iphone tracking me?
A: It's not. It's tracking networks and cell towers near wherever you go.
Q: What is the difference between tracking me, and tracking the towers wherever I happen to go? Isn't that the same thing?
A: No. Because it's crowd-sourced. Total crowd size = 1.
Q: Umm. Ok? Soo. Why have you been keeping logs for the past year?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Then why was it unencrypted?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Right. Then why when I opted out did it ignore my choice?
A: That was a bug.
I think is quite conceivable that keeping those logs forever, not encrypting them, maintaining them despite an opt out, and not removing the timestamps was done in the spirit of: "Let's keep the data, maybe they will be useful at some point, and why bother do encrypt them, that is just some extra lines of code to write."
And it is this spirit which is somehow worrying.
Q: Why is my iphone tracking me?
A: It's not. It's tracking networks and cell towers near wherever you go.
Q: What is the difference between tracking me, and tracking the towers wherever I happen to go? Isn't that the same thing?
A: No. Because it's crowd-sourced. Total crowd size = 1.
Q: Umm. Ok? Soo. Why have you been keeping logs for the past year?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Then why was it unencrypted?
A: That was a bug.
Q: Right. Then why when I opted out did it ignore my choice?
A: That was a bug.
I think is quite conceivable that keeping those logs forever, not encrypting them, maintaining them despite an opt out, and not removing the timestamps was done in the spirit of: "Let's keep the data, maybe they will be useful at some point, and why bother do encrypt them, that is just some extra lines of code to write."
And it is this spirit which is somehow worrying.
vand0576
Aug 11, 01:46 PM
...There's no way in the world Apple would make as much money off of this as if they got in with one of the big guys. Just ask Disney - ESPN mobile is bombing as is Disney mobile....
They are failing because they believe media content is what is important to people. Pumping their phones full of media and "services" which only are really advertisements that don't help anyone but Disney and ESPN. They are phones with superficial artificial sustainance.
Technology wouldn't be such a boom if people couldn't advertise with it some way. Apple will only succeed if it can avoid this and make a product that is functional and serves a true purpose in the consumer's life without the bullcrap content.
They are failing because they believe media content is what is important to people. Pumping their phones full of media and "services" which only are really advertisements that don't help anyone but Disney and ESPN. They are phones with superficial artificial sustainance.
Technology wouldn't be such a boom if people couldn't advertise with it some way. Apple will only succeed if it can avoid this and make a product that is functional and serves a true purpose in the consumer's life without the bullcrap content.
hunkaburningluv
Mar 23, 06:09 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Competition is good.
Make a case for your argument.
Well, you only need to look at what happened with the gameboy to see that competition is good.
After seeing off the game gear and lynx, the gameboy stagnated for almost a decade. How long did it take before there was a colour version? Years, yet we've seen some great revisions since the PSP was announced.
Competition is good.
Make a case for your argument.
Well, you only need to look at what happened with the gameboy to see that competition is good.
After seeing off the game gear and lynx, the gameboy stagnated for almost a decade. How long did it take before there was a colour version? Years, yet we've seen some great revisions since the PSP was announced.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Silentwave
Sep 14, 11:00 PM
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
It is a shame, but sadly those are the real cheap chips right now. The good news is that they'll change those over soon enough with more Allendales, then millville and so on and so on taking on more segments of the market.
I think as they transition to 45nm we'll see more and more Core chips, simply because they'll want as much manufacturing to be on the new process as possible, and they don't need to scale the D's etc. down to it.
It is a shame, but sadly those are the real cheap chips right now. The good news is that they'll change those over soon enough with more Allendales, then millville and so on and so on taking on more segments of the market.
I think as they transition to 45nm we'll see more and more Core chips, simply because they'll want as much manufacturing to be on the new process as possible, and they don't need to scale the D's etc. down to it.
deadworlds
Mar 25, 11:58 PM
I'm really not looking forward to Lion at all. It just seems like a huge step backwards for those of us that use our computers as real computers and not toys. I have an ipad, an iphone and several macs, but they each have specific uses. I don't want my desktop machine to be anything like my ipad, one is for doing real work and doing my daily stuff on, the iOS gadgets are for fun games and browsing mostly.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I 100% agree!
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I 100% agree!
notabadname
Apr 6, 03:50 PM
Wow, that's success that only a Ballmer could love.
Apple does need some competition. I hope these competitors focus on some of the Apple shortcomings like the religious adherence to the Cocoa Touch UI. Ideally there would be a more hybrid iOS/MacOS functionality in an iPad such that it could morph up to a more desktop like experience when docked. And conversely, it seems like MacBook Air/ Mac OS X Lion is getting a more iOS like feel. There's a middle ground there that Apple needs to get to. I suspect they will. But as with tethering, and allowing re-duplication of core apps by third parties, it will take Apple a while to let go here and allow the iPad to become that perfect combo.
They still seem to ultimately strike this balance better than any other vendor.
Not really. They built an excellent product, at what is still a leading price point, all without ANY competition.
It is the other manufacturers that need Apple as a competitor. First the iPod, THEN all the clones that came out after, the iPhone, THEN all the clones and finally the iPad THEN . . . . you get the idea. Apple has been creating innovative products, in a vacuum, that cause the rest of the market to follow, for decades, just fine. Unlike other manufacturers, they strive for excellence with out the need for a product to "duplicate" and spurn them on.
Apple does need some competition. I hope these competitors focus on some of the Apple shortcomings like the religious adherence to the Cocoa Touch UI. Ideally there would be a more hybrid iOS/MacOS functionality in an iPad such that it could morph up to a more desktop like experience when docked. And conversely, it seems like MacBook Air/ Mac OS X Lion is getting a more iOS like feel. There's a middle ground there that Apple needs to get to. I suspect they will. But as with tethering, and allowing re-duplication of core apps by third parties, it will take Apple a while to let go here and allow the iPad to become that perfect combo.
They still seem to ultimately strike this balance better than any other vendor.
Not really. They built an excellent product, at what is still a leading price point, all without ANY competition.
It is the other manufacturers that need Apple as a competitor. First the iPod, THEN all the clones that came out after, the iPhone, THEN all the clones and finally the iPad THEN . . . . you get the idea. Apple has been creating innovative products, in a vacuum, that cause the rest of the market to follow, for decades, just fine. Unlike other manufacturers, they strive for excellence with out the need for a product to "duplicate" and spurn them on.
myemosoul
Jun 22, 02:49 PM
I'm afraid i have more bad news to throw into the fire.
I live in New Jersey and I called my local Radio Shack (where i was the only person to get a PIN on pre-order day) and the manager told me his district is only getting 4 iPhones and there's 19 stores in the district so my chances of getting one on Thursday are very, very slim.
I have decided to camp out at the Apple store starting 10pm tomorrow night and i'm sure i will have a much better chance of getting one that way.
I will use my $184 gift card i got from trading in my 3GS to buy a vcr/dvd recorder and i will make it a point to never shop at a Radio Shack again, which from what i read the other day won't be long because they're rumored to be out of business by 2011.
I live in New Jersey and I called my local Radio Shack (where i was the only person to get a PIN on pre-order day) and the manager told me his district is only getting 4 iPhones and there's 19 stores in the district so my chances of getting one on Thursday are very, very slim.
I have decided to camp out at the Apple store starting 10pm tomorrow night and i'm sure i will have a much better chance of getting one that way.
I will use my $184 gift card i got from trading in my 3GS to buy a vcr/dvd recorder and i will make it a point to never shop at a Radio Shack again, which from what i read the other day won't be long because they're rumored to be out of business by 2011.
Super Dave
Aug 8, 12:54 AM
Part of the "Top Secret" stuff has got to be a new Finder... that Finder looked so boring during the Keynote... it just stood out. This release will have a two year gap and that means we are bound to see some Finder changes!
Spring '06 - still 8 months away.
Yeah, I can't imagine they won't update the Finder and Safari (with more than they've shown). We are far from seeing the end of Leopard, and I think Steve made that very clear.
David :cool:
Spring '06 - still 8 months away.
Yeah, I can't imagine they won't update the Finder and Safari (with more than they've shown). We are far from seeing the end of Leopard, and I think Steve made that very clear.
David :cool:
cgc
Jul 15, 11:05 AM
:o well, that looks a real mess.. but I suppose it's a good idea since heated air tends to rise.. :-)
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
zin
Mar 22, 12:52 PM
A 5 gram drop in weight? And people said Apple's effort at reducing weight was bad. :rolleyes:
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 2, 04:30 PM
I love that i won a mini in the mini-only race. I'll never touch either of my minis again.
CFreymarc
Mar 31, 05:59 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Tightening controls? How about Google having final right of refusal toward any mass production Bill of Materials for any Android phone going into production? That will keep the manufacturing accountants from screwing over the developers taking a $0.76 of parts out to save on a run but generate a million man hours of bug fixing in the third party developer community.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Tightening controls? How about Google having final right of refusal toward any mass production Bill of Materials for any Android phone going into production? That will keep the manufacturing accountants from screwing over the developers taking a $0.76 of parts out to save on a run but generate a million man hours of bug fixing in the third party developer community.
.jpg "Mortal-kombat-9-sub-zero")
twoodcc
Aug 27, 01:06 AM
i just hope they don't forget the mac mini
jfinn1976
Jun 14, 03:56 PM
My local RS said 7:30 pre-orders start on tues the 15th, I sure hope you don't wait until thurs.
MacRumors
Aug 11, 10:05 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Despite being uncharacteristic of the secretive Steve Jobs we have grown to know, AppleInsider reports that the Apple CEO has been boasting about Apple's upcoming phone offering (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1959) to his inner circle. Apparently, Steve's own excitement over the product has lead him to produce a few "zealous ramblings" dating back as early as this past spring.
AppleInsider also offers a little more information (although cryptic) on the characteristics of the phone.
One person familiar with the ongoings believes the Apple cofounder has commissioned the release of cell phone prototypes to at least two potential OEM manufacturing partners in recent months. Current designs are said to conform to Apple's integrated model and leverage its tightly-knit digital media franchises, that person added.
In addition, AppleInsider quotes a source who states that the phone is indeed set to launch "earlier than some people may be expecting, in the form of a 'big bang' introduction that will catch even some insiders off-guard." ThinkSecret has previously stated that the phone has seen delays (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060330174059.shtml) that could set it back as far as next year, whereas Engadget has recently stated that the phone could arrive as early as this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml).
Despite being uncharacteristic of the secretive Steve Jobs we have grown to know, AppleInsider reports that the Apple CEO has been boasting about Apple's upcoming phone offering (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1959) to his inner circle. Apparently, Steve's own excitement over the product has lead him to produce a few "zealous ramblings" dating back as early as this past spring.
AppleInsider also offers a little more information (although cryptic) on the characteristics of the phone.
One person familiar with the ongoings believes the Apple cofounder has commissioned the release of cell phone prototypes to at least two potential OEM manufacturing partners in recent months. Current designs are said to conform to Apple's integrated model and leverage its tightly-knit digital media franchises, that person added.
In addition, AppleInsider quotes a source who states that the phone is indeed set to launch "earlier than some people may be expecting, in the form of a 'big bang' introduction that will catch even some insiders off-guard." ThinkSecret has previously stated that the phone has seen delays (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060330174059.shtml) that could set it back as far as next year, whereas Engadget has recently stated that the phone could arrive as early as this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml).
Backup15andpunt
Nov 29, 01:34 AM
Here an idea. Have Apple buy Universal. Then Microsoft and pay Apple for every Zune it sells. Of course the government might frown on this kind of purchase.
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 11:26 AM
Hellhammer, can I ask you something about this? There are SB LV and now SB ULV. Both are for laptops and the Macbook Pro 13 has SB LV, right? Or does the Pro has something else? What is the performance difference between an equally clocked ULV and LV?
Thanks!
13" MBP uses SV chips, i.e. standard voltage (35W). Before it used MV (medium voltage, 25W) chips but Sandy Bridge does not offer CPUs like that. LV (25W) and ULV (17W) chips have not been released yet but will be released shortly like the article says.
If the clock speed and other specs are the same, then the performance is the same. ULV and LV chips are only separated by the TDP which causes the ULV to have lower clock speed. Otherwise they are the same chips.
Thanks!
13" MBP uses SV chips, i.e. standard voltage (35W). Before it used MV (medium voltage, 25W) chips but Sandy Bridge does not offer CPUs like that. LV (25W) and ULV (17W) chips have not been released yet but will be released shortly like the article says.
If the clock speed and other specs are the same, then the performance is the same. ULV and LV chips are only separated by the TDP which causes the ULV to have lower clock speed. Otherwise they are the same chips.
xfiftyfour
Aug 7, 11:21 AM
anyone see that the apple store online says "we'll be back soon - we are busy updating the store for you and will be back within the hour"?
Oh, and if it's already been said, I'm sorry - I'm not going back and reading through 10 pages... haha
Oh, and if it's already been said, I'm sorry - I'm not going back and reading through 10 pages... haha
mark!
Aug 11, 05:57 PM
These rumors have been going for so long. Since right? 3 Years is a lot for technology.
But atleast we know they can't be just sitting there. With both the nano, and iPod with video being almost 1 year old, they can't just be sitting there. :)
Just gimme a new iPod & "iPhone". :)
But atleast we know they can't be just sitting there. With both the nano, and iPod with video being almost 1 year old, they can't just be sitting there. :)
Just gimme a new iPod & "iPhone". :)
kugino
Aug 7, 11:45 PM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
hmmm, most of the features are already in windows? what version of windows do you have? are you from the future? and, ummm, who knows what's going to be in vista because it keeps changing...even what you see now may not make the final cut. to say that the two OSs are the same because they both have the same features is akin to saying that a yugo and a mercedes are both the same because they both have four wheels and an engine. look, there are things that vista will have that osx will lack...there are things in osx that vista will lack. neither os will be perfect. still, os x is great because of its underlying architecture and not only b/c of this feature or that feature.
and most people will not be making their buying decision on which os is better...the greater selling point on the mac is boot camp and booting windows on the mac. most people aren't going to care what os is better.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
hmmm, most of the features are already in windows? what version of windows do you have? are you from the future? and, ummm, who knows what's going to be in vista because it keeps changing...even what you see now may not make the final cut. to say that the two OSs are the same because they both have the same features is akin to saying that a yugo and a mercedes are both the same because they both have four wheels and an engine. look, there are things that vista will have that osx will lack...there are things in osx that vista will lack. neither os will be perfect. still, os x is great because of its underlying architecture and not only b/c of this feature or that feature.
and most people will not be making their buying decision on which os is better...the greater selling point on the mac is boot camp and booting windows on the mac. most people aren't going to care what os is better.
macman2790
Sep 19, 07:36 AM
apple store isn't down yet. I don't expect it today like a lot of people do
heisetax
Jul 14, 04:16 PM
That's nice...
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
Apple has had an inbetween model for a long time. Low end where models change more often compared to a so called high end where a good model is made, then only minor changes are made every year or so. High end clock speed will still be down after 2 years. It sounds to me that Apple makes a high end then allows it to slide to a middle ground, ownly they forget to lower the price to mid ground.
The new Intel Macs are supposed to be top end again, so that means a general accross the board price increases. The price increases must mean we are getting a new high end product. Just wait a couple of generations & we'll have a mid-range Mac.
Bill the TaxMan
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
Apple has had an inbetween model for a long time. Low end where models change more often compared to a so called high end where a good model is made, then only minor changes are made every year or so. High end clock speed will still be down after 2 years. It sounds to me that Apple makes a high end then allows it to slide to a middle ground, ownly they forget to lower the price to mid ground.
The new Intel Macs are supposed to be top end again, so that means a general accross the board price increases. The price increases must mean we are getting a new high end product. Just wait a couple of generations & we'll have a mid-range Mac.
Bill the TaxMan
Magrathea
Apr 6, 11:15 PM
Youre aware the newest mbp (high end) 15, and 17 haveva 1gb graphics memory, right?
Yes but not Nvidia so I don't think they can use the CUDA think. correct my if I'm wrong where PP gurus.
Yes but not Nvidia so I don't think they can use the CUDA think. correct my if I'm wrong where PP gurus.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий