runninmac
Jan 5, 04:20 PM
Great idea but sadly I don't have enough will power to wait :D
Arran
Mar 17, 07:03 AM
OP: Just curious. Roughly what bill denominations did you hand over? Was it mostly big bills? Or a mess of ones, fives, tens, twenties and coins?
Did you count it along with him? There's no chance a relative secretly slipped an extra $300 in your iPad fund - just to be nice to you. It's been known to happen.
Did you count it along with him? There's no chance a relative secretly slipped an extra $300 in your iPad fund - just to be nice to you. It's been known to happen.
Lord Blackadder
Nov 16, 10:12 AM
I doubt Apple will go with AMD in the near future - at the moment Intel has the performance lead and the AMD/Intel war is so hot Intel would no doubt punish Apple for adding AMD CPUs to their product line.
I'm not holding my breath...but I am interested to see what AMD comes out with in answer to the Core 2 Duo. Maybe if AMD regains its competitiveness there will be pressure for Apple to branch out a little.
I'm not holding my breath...but I am interested to see what AMD comes out with in answer to the Core 2 Duo. Maybe if AMD regains its competitiveness there will be pressure for Apple to branch out a little.
Mac-Mariachi
Apr 5, 04:22 PM
Apple I love you, and I love your products. I�ve been pro Apple since 1992
But I wouldn�t download this "app" even if you paid me.
But I wouldn�t download this "app" even if you paid me.
more...
flopticalcube
Apr 16, 04:53 PM
Hardly. Do look up "affront" in a dictionary.
Sure it is. I find your particular brand of narrow-mindedness offensive. Therefore it is an affront.
...and with that you have nothing to offer me anymore... Goodbye...
Sure it is. I find your particular brand of narrow-mindedness offensive. Therefore it is an affront.
...and with that you have nothing to offer me anymore... Goodbye...
MikeTheC
Oct 5, 11:14 AM
I can certainly vouch for the sentiment expressed that people out there like the iTunes application without regard to how they have obtained their music. I have lots of music on my computers that I have accumulated over many years; and of all the media players I've used over the years, iTunes is without a doubt the nicest and best of the lot.
However, when it comes to the task of extracting audio from CDs and then encoding them as MP3s, I still prefer Audion. I like the specific controls it gives me. Also, the cost of the user interface experience in Audion for that particular set of tasks does not exceed the benefits of having used the program.
I fully understand someone's desire to protect the means of their own financial income. Clearly, the general public's acquisition of music or movies "for free" does not contribute to the artist's income from his/her creative efforts. However, I have two basic issues with present models (both the traditional "brick-n-mortar" as well as the digital DRM'd ones):
1. I feel the labels are by-and-large ripping off artists. Yes, I fully understand that label companies have much more invested in the business of making music than any single band or artist does; however that doesn't entitle them to make a king's randsom from each CD or DVD and pay the tiniest fraction of those monies to the artist. Due to my personal objections to this, I refuse to be party to this practice.
2. I object to having my usage rights in any way restricted. I do not like to be hemmed in (even in principle). I have not and never will sign any kind of license agreement (figuratively or literally) just for the benefit of possessing entertainment content.
A separate issue I have (which only applies to having to buy an entire CD at once instead of individual tracks) is that it's well known that most CDs have only a few good tracks on them; the remaining ones being largely "filler". I'm not saying there aren't ANY CDs out there where all the tracks are good. However most of the ones I've heard over the years have maybe 2-4 good tracks, and the rest are garbage.
The following is, admittedly, a bit off-topic, but it is pertinant to the subject at hand (that is, the licensing issue). It really gets me that you have the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI going after businesses which have music playing in their shop environment, especially when the music in question is NOT a live performance nor intented as a means of deriving additional income. And the crux of that issue, for me, is that the restaurants (and offices in many cases) have never signed any kind of licensing agreement with anyone (and moreover ASCAP/BMI and the RIAA try to turn this into a criminal issue when clearly it should more properly be tried as a civil issue -- on which I feel is baseless and that they should be laughed out of court over).
</rant>
However, when it comes to the task of extracting audio from CDs and then encoding them as MP3s, I still prefer Audion. I like the specific controls it gives me. Also, the cost of the user interface experience in Audion for that particular set of tasks does not exceed the benefits of having used the program.
I fully understand someone's desire to protect the means of their own financial income. Clearly, the general public's acquisition of music or movies "for free" does not contribute to the artist's income from his/her creative efforts. However, I have two basic issues with present models (both the traditional "brick-n-mortar" as well as the digital DRM'd ones):
1. I feel the labels are by-and-large ripping off artists. Yes, I fully understand that label companies have much more invested in the business of making music than any single band or artist does; however that doesn't entitle them to make a king's randsom from each CD or DVD and pay the tiniest fraction of those monies to the artist. Due to my personal objections to this, I refuse to be party to this practice.
2. I object to having my usage rights in any way restricted. I do not like to be hemmed in (even in principle). I have not and never will sign any kind of license agreement (figuratively or literally) just for the benefit of possessing entertainment content.
A separate issue I have (which only applies to having to buy an entire CD at once instead of individual tracks) is that it's well known that most CDs have only a few good tracks on them; the remaining ones being largely "filler". I'm not saying there aren't ANY CDs out there where all the tracks are good. However most of the ones I've heard over the years have maybe 2-4 good tracks, and the rest are garbage.
The following is, admittedly, a bit off-topic, but it is pertinant to the subject at hand (that is, the licensing issue). It really gets me that you have the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI going after businesses which have music playing in their shop environment, especially when the music in question is NOT a live performance nor intented as a means of deriving additional income. And the crux of that issue, for me, is that the restaurants (and offices in many cases) have never signed any kind of licensing agreement with anyone (and moreover ASCAP/BMI and the RIAA try to turn this into a criminal issue when clearly it should more properly be tried as a civil issue -- on which I feel is baseless and that they should be laughed out of court over).
</rant>
more...
MasterHowl
Mar 24, 03:09 PM
Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear Mac OS X, happy birthday to you :apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:
DeSnousa
Apr 28, 11:51 PM
I keep on hearing these sick setups, I need photos now ;) Show me your f@h setup please :)
more...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
rovex
Apr 26, 05:35 AM
Is that an aluminium curved back I see? Please say it ain't so!
The demise of glass is premature until liquid metal becomes readily available.
The demise of glass is premature until liquid metal becomes readily available.
more...
snebes
Apr 8, 04:56 PM
This would be especially true if person claiming to be a current or former employee knows the term BBY at all. Hell, I'd believe them for my own sake, as I don't want to believe in a world where anyone outside of the Best Buy "family" would ever be concerned with such trivial things.
You do know that BBY is their ticker symbol, right? Same reason the "stock holders" here say AAPL instead of Apple. Its not exactly top secret info.
You do know that BBY is their ticker symbol, right? Same reason the "stock holders" here say AAPL instead of Apple. Its not exactly top secret info.
terraphantm
Apr 25, 07:41 PM
Bigger sensor requires bigger lens and bigger lens requires bigger housing. With Apple, you are not going to get this. If you look for bigger sensor -check Nokia or Sony phones.
They increased the sensor size with the 4 even though the phone was overall slimmer, they could do it again
They increased the sensor size with the 4 even though the phone was overall slimmer, they could do it again
more...
twoodcc
May 13, 10:13 PM
oh really? thats frustrating!! what soft of temps do they sit at? are you sure you have cranked enough voltage into them?
the temps haven't been that high (70C or under). i have changed the voltages, but maybe not enough. that's one of those things you have to play with.
but it looks like 2 of my rigs are down now. i might be driving back to fix them tomorrow night i guess. i'll put both of them back to 3.5 ghz and hopefully they'll stay stable.
my asus has been rock solid compared to the other 2 though. staying at 3.5-3.6 ghz
the temps haven't been that high (70C or under). i have changed the voltages, but maybe not enough. that's one of those things you have to play with.
but it looks like 2 of my rigs are down now. i might be driving back to fix them tomorrow night i guess. i'll put both of them back to 3.5 ghz and hopefully they'll stay stable.
my asus has been rock solid compared to the other 2 though. staying at 3.5-3.6 ghz
D'Illusion
Oct 4, 09:23 AM
If the garage is detached, what does he do when it's raining?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Rn2dKSqIZIGUXM:http://www.maccessorized.com/product_images/e/743/Umbrella_apple_logo__91611_zoom.jpg&t=1
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Rn2dKSqIZIGUXM:http://www.maccessorized.com/product_images/e/743/Umbrella_apple_logo__91611_zoom.jpg&t=1
more...
stoid
Aug 7, 08:18 PM
making the acds a higher resolution definitely means that there will be new ones soon just like the powerbooks screen before the macbook pro
Well then I guess it's awhile until we get new ACDs then, since the resolution stayed the same.
Well then I guess it's awhile until we get new ACDs then, since the resolution stayed the same.
Metatron
Jan 5, 04:19 PM
If I recall correctly (prob. not) Apple use to have the keynote live on TV that people could pick up with old c-band sat. recievers. What ever happend to that?
more...
RawBert
Apr 25, 12:00 PM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
That's what I'm seeing too.
That's what I'm seeing too.
Aniej
Jan 5, 03:21 PM
it would be nice if we could also post a countdown ticker as well don't you think? Like the widget for macworld or jsw's madejew post counter?
MagnusVonMagnum
May 1, 07:55 PM
Too bad they don't rethink/switch back their changes to Spaces.... UGH. :(
Because it took them 7 years to get it right.
Does that mean it took Apple 10 years to get OSX right? :p
Because it took them 7 years to get it right.
Does that mean it took Apple 10 years to get OSX right? :p
DoFoT9
Jul 22, 04:54 AM
That is a very poor speed, at least I'm getting close to 10 mb/s but paying for 30 I think... $76 a month. These monopolies we have in the US are a drag, they can do whatever they want and the gov does nothing about it. Mine is adequate for all the folding at least.
i pay $130aus a month ($~110 US) for 50GB of downloads! (adsl2+). at least i hit the speeds.
are you on cable lord?
i pay $130aus a month ($~110 US) for 50GB of downloads! (adsl2+). at least i hit the speeds.
are you on cable lord?
snberk103
Jan 15, 04:43 PM
One thing I think people need to keep in mind about the MB Air... it's NOT a replacement laptop or a replacement workstation!
Stop looking for the big power and flexibility! It's a product designed for the road warrior. Someone that is always on the road and needs a light but functional laptop will find the Air useful and not a bad value compared to others on the market in the category.
People should look at the MB Air as a technology demonstration of whats possible and what will come in the future to more laptops... I'm guessing the next MB's and MB Pros are going to be thinner and have solid state drives as an option.
All I'm saying is keep it in perspective... the MB Air is NOT FOR EVERYONE!
I'm not the target market for the MBA, and I suspect most of us on MR aren't either. We like our Macs for more 'technical' reasons. So while I can appreciate the technology and looks of an MBA, I would never buy one for myself - it doesn't do what I need it to do. However.... My wife, who is a road warrior, is starting to sound intrigued specifically because it had "less". Less size, Less weight. Less energy consumption (longer battery life).
Harddrive specs? She uses not quite half of her existing 80gigs. CPU specs - Does it run Word? Safari? MSN Messenger? Optical Drive? I'm the only one who uses it (I'm her IT dept). Firewire? Same as the optical drive.
She sees her MBP as a tool with which to research, and to write, and to play the occasional song while researching and writing. And solitaire. She is also a missing demographic in Apple's market. Look at the airport lounges full of Mac users. The majority are men and likely in a media or tech field. Not all, but a majority.
For my wife (and others like her) the specs that matter to her are weight - she travels with carry-on luggage only - even for 1 or 2 week trips. Size - she is not a lumberjack - that 1 kg savings over her MBP is *huge*. Does it run the non-media centric apps that are her livelihood? Yes.
The deal breaker for her was the ethernet port. Still is if she can't use it and a USB memory stick simultaneously. Maybe I'll get her current MBP in a year when Apple puts out Rev B of the MBA....
Stop looking for the big power and flexibility! It's a product designed for the road warrior. Someone that is always on the road and needs a light but functional laptop will find the Air useful and not a bad value compared to others on the market in the category.
People should look at the MB Air as a technology demonstration of whats possible and what will come in the future to more laptops... I'm guessing the next MB's and MB Pros are going to be thinner and have solid state drives as an option.
All I'm saying is keep it in perspective... the MB Air is NOT FOR EVERYONE!
I'm not the target market for the MBA, and I suspect most of us on MR aren't either. We like our Macs for more 'technical' reasons. So while I can appreciate the technology and looks of an MBA, I would never buy one for myself - it doesn't do what I need it to do. However.... My wife, who is a road warrior, is starting to sound intrigued specifically because it had "less". Less size, Less weight. Less energy consumption (longer battery life).
Harddrive specs? She uses not quite half of her existing 80gigs. CPU specs - Does it run Word? Safari? MSN Messenger? Optical Drive? I'm the only one who uses it (I'm her IT dept). Firewire? Same as the optical drive.
She sees her MBP as a tool with which to research, and to write, and to play the occasional song while researching and writing. And solitaire. She is also a missing demographic in Apple's market. Look at the airport lounges full of Mac users. The majority are men and likely in a media or tech field. Not all, but a majority.
For my wife (and others like her) the specs that matter to her are weight - she travels with carry-on luggage only - even for 1 or 2 week trips. Size - she is not a lumberjack - that 1 kg savings over her MBP is *huge*. Does it run the non-media centric apps that are her livelihood? Yes.
The deal breaker for her was the ethernet port. Still is if she can't use it and a USB memory stick simultaneously. Maybe I'll get her current MBP in a year when Apple puts out Rev B of the MBA....
mubo
Apr 16, 09:52 AM
Now that looks better. Where did you get these from? I'm assuming they are fake.
Speaker and mic on the back:rolleyes:
Speaker and mic on the back:rolleyes:
RubbishBBspeed
Apr 8, 07:23 PM
Best Buy does this all the time. I purchased a Samsung TV off their Web site for in-store sameday pickup last year, and took my receipt to my local store. They wouldn't give me the TV I already purchased because they were holding all of that model until Sunday because of their Sunday ad flyer. They had at least 10 of that model in stock on their store shelves.
They told me I could come back Sunday to pick it up. Naturally, I refused (this was like Tuesday), called Best Buy Online and had them refund my purchase. Then, purchased from Amazon.
I'll never purchase anything major from them again.
I did the same with pc world in england, I haven't bought anything from there stores in the last 15 years and would reckon I've taken between family and friends probably �40,000 out of there takings by buying and advising people to purchase else where. Sometimes it may seem trivial to take a stand against these stores but the amounts do add up as time goes buy.
Which reminds me, I must write to the CEO this weekend and send photos and a list of all the stuff not bought through them. Just as they post there financial results, which aren't looking that good this year.
They told me I could come back Sunday to pick it up. Naturally, I refused (this was like Tuesday), called Best Buy Online and had them refund my purchase. Then, purchased from Amazon.
I'll never purchase anything major from them again.
I did the same with pc world in england, I haven't bought anything from there stores in the last 15 years and would reckon I've taken between family and friends probably �40,000 out of there takings by buying and advising people to purchase else where. Sometimes it may seem trivial to take a stand against these stores but the amounts do add up as time goes buy.
Which reminds me, I must write to the CEO this weekend and send photos and a list of all the stuff not bought through them. Just as they post there financial results, which aren't looking that good this year.
lostprophet894
Apr 15, 05:16 PM
If they're going to go with an aluminum design, it should look like this, but maybe with rounded edges:
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2010/03/30/iphone-4g-aka-hd-mock-up-design-and-details-photo/
That homescreen is nice. Not sure how I feel about the casing.
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2010/03/30/iphone-4g-aka-hd-mock-up-design-and-details-photo/
That homescreen is nice. Not sure how I feel about the casing.
