BRLawyer
Aug 27, 02:56 AM
You are talking crap. It is only about industrial quality. Nothing else.
There are simply too many individual issues with the new MB and MBP here, and I do not want to repeat them. Mostly hardware, but some are related to using OSX and MSOS. You can read, so do that.
APPLE has been 'second to none' in the eyes of APPLE users, compared to who? I think MAC OS is fantastic, but it does not mean, that all those who switch now to APPLE have to accept hardware lemons to get this OS... Absolutely no excuse for over 25% crap products delivered to the customers...
Everybody knows that APPLE could have had a 40+ market share, but decided not to license out. We all would be happier now, but JOBS decided against that years back. So now we are talking about a less than 5% market share... JUst do your math: If they had a 40% share WW, we would hear millions screaming about their lemons...
It seems there's too much luck involved when buying an APPLE product right now.
When they finally get their QC act together I will gladly buy their product.
Cheers, and no hard feelings.
No hard feelings indeed, but please show me numbers and facts, not anecdotal evidence of some dozens/hundreds of people (as compared to millions of purchasers). I will take your point when you do that, thanks very much. And really, to say that 25% of Apple products are lemons is to be, at very least, extremely glib.
Besides, if Apple is able to replace/fix those that have problems, there is no reason to complain whatsoever...this is what guarantees and technical support are for.
There are simply too many individual issues with the new MB and MBP here, and I do not want to repeat them. Mostly hardware, but some are related to using OSX and MSOS. You can read, so do that.
APPLE has been 'second to none' in the eyes of APPLE users, compared to who? I think MAC OS is fantastic, but it does not mean, that all those who switch now to APPLE have to accept hardware lemons to get this OS... Absolutely no excuse for over 25% crap products delivered to the customers...
Everybody knows that APPLE could have had a 40+ market share, but decided not to license out. We all would be happier now, but JOBS decided against that years back. So now we are talking about a less than 5% market share... JUst do your math: If they had a 40% share WW, we would hear millions screaming about their lemons...
It seems there's too much luck involved when buying an APPLE product right now.
When they finally get their QC act together I will gladly buy their product.
Cheers, and no hard feelings.
No hard feelings indeed, but please show me numbers and facts, not anecdotal evidence of some dozens/hundreds of people (as compared to millions of purchasers). I will take your point when you do that, thanks very much. And really, to say that 25% of Apple products are lemons is to be, at very least, extremely glib.
Besides, if Apple is able to replace/fix those that have problems, there is no reason to complain whatsoever...this is what guarantees and technical support are for.
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 11:28 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?
No. I shouldn't think any laptop will be getting Kentsfield for a while....
No. I shouldn't think any laptop will be getting Kentsfield for a while....
LC475
Apr 11, 06:49 PM
There's nothing to fear about Apple making FCP less than professional.
The thing to understand is that NLEs never change their basic structure of how editing works, i.e moving clips in the timeline, trimming, etc. Look at Avid - it hasn't changed much at all since the 90s because they know if they did, they would lose their base of users. Avid came in the early 90s, and FCP came in the late 90s. FCP is an improvement to the Avid idea of NLE editing, and it's a good improvement. That's one reason why it became popular. Sure, the GUI might change but the basic way of working will not. After Effects is a good example. The GUI looks totally different than it did on version 5, but you can still work basically the same.
I don't understand what people mean by FCP lagging behind Avid and Adobe. In the last couple years, FCP has been making strong gains in Hollywood. WB, 20th Fox, Paramount have all used FCP on major movies. I worked as an AE on one of them. Professionals like FCP, many movie editors I know like FCP, major post houses use it, and I'm sure after tomorrow we will like it even more.
If anything, FCP has become less of a consumer app and more of a professional one. Hollywood wouldn't have thought of using FCP in 1999 on version 1, but they're using it now. It's become more professional over the last ten years.
With the new technology of thunderbolt, 64bit support, and multithreading support, in addition to iPad support, we should see an awesome upgrade tomorrow.
The thing to understand is that NLEs never change their basic structure of how editing works, i.e moving clips in the timeline, trimming, etc. Look at Avid - it hasn't changed much at all since the 90s because they know if they did, they would lose their base of users. Avid came in the early 90s, and FCP came in the late 90s. FCP is an improvement to the Avid idea of NLE editing, and it's a good improvement. That's one reason why it became popular. Sure, the GUI might change but the basic way of working will not. After Effects is a good example. The GUI looks totally different than it did on version 5, but you can still work basically the same.
I don't understand what people mean by FCP lagging behind Avid and Adobe. In the last couple years, FCP has been making strong gains in Hollywood. WB, 20th Fox, Paramount have all used FCP on major movies. I worked as an AE on one of them. Professionals like FCP, many movie editors I know like FCP, major post houses use it, and I'm sure after tomorrow we will like it even more.
If anything, FCP has become less of a consumer app and more of a professional one. Hollywood wouldn't have thought of using FCP in 1999 on version 1, but they're using it now. It's become more professional over the last ten years.
With the new technology of thunderbolt, 64bit support, and multithreading support, in addition to iPad support, we should see an awesome upgrade tomorrow.
Multimedia
Aug 18, 11:54 PM
So the webpages at Apple.com suggest the improvement of Xeon vs Quad G5 in FCP of 1.3- 1.4 times as fast as the Quad G5.
However, notice that it is footnoted that these results were obtained using a Beta version of FCP:
On The Mac Pro Performance Page (http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html) In the first section "Film and Video" footnote under the Bar Charts:
"Testing conducted by Apple in July 2006 using preproduction Mac Pro units and shipping Power Mac G5 Quad units. Mac Pro testing conducted with a beta version of Final Cut Pro."What does this mean for us: new version of FCP required for multiple core utilization?
I just took advanatage of the crossgrade, will it soon need an upgrade as well? I hope it is an update/download not as a version upgrade/purchase.I'm sure it will be a free download update not more money. But I'm not surprised. That's why I'm waiting until December 10 to mail in my Crossgrade form and DVD. I wanted to get all the updates until the offer expires December 20 on the install DVDs I get with my Crossgrade. Thanks for pointing out that detail. :)
I think it's safe to point out that when this MultiCore version of Final Cut Pro is released, that FCP performance will also improve on the Quad. The same will also likely be true when Leopard ships.
However, notice that it is footnoted that these results were obtained using a Beta version of FCP:
On The Mac Pro Performance Page (http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html) In the first section "Film and Video" footnote under the Bar Charts:
"Testing conducted by Apple in July 2006 using preproduction Mac Pro units and shipping Power Mac G5 Quad units. Mac Pro testing conducted with a beta version of Final Cut Pro."What does this mean for us: new version of FCP required for multiple core utilization?
I just took advanatage of the crossgrade, will it soon need an upgrade as well? I hope it is an update/download not as a version upgrade/purchase.I'm sure it will be a free download update not more money. But I'm not surprised. That's why I'm waiting until December 10 to mail in my Crossgrade form and DVD. I wanted to get all the updates until the offer expires December 20 on the install DVDs I get with my Crossgrade. Thanks for pointing out that detail. :)
I think it's safe to point out that when this MultiCore version of Final Cut Pro is released, that FCP performance will also improve on the Quad. The same will also likely be true when Leopard ships.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 27, 10:27 AM
Are you sure that discount applies to the NEW Merom based Macs - I don't think so?
It isn't like they are releasing new computers. They will update the current line. So if MBP, iMac, MB, and Mini get Merom (I know there is debate but...) and they don't include them in the promotion only the MacPro will qualify. That makes for a very stupid promotion end, you usually want your promotions to go out BIG.
It isn't like they are releasing new computers. They will update the current line. So if MBP, iMac, MB, and Mini get Merom (I know there is debate but...) and they don't include them in the promotion only the MacPro will qualify. That makes for a very stupid promotion end, you usually want your promotions to go out BIG.
Steamboatwillie
Aug 6, 09:53 AM
It was all the rave to dream of PowerBook G5's next Tuesday! Alas, they never came :(
emiljan
Apr 27, 12:10 PM
These people never stop do they? I don't remember anyone asking bush or any other president about their educational records, plus the one time they shed light on bush's military record it just seemed to disappear into thin air.
At least new the president's chances of getting re-elected in 2012 just skyrocketed.
At least new the president's chances of getting re-elected in 2012 just skyrocketed.
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
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 03:42 PM
Everyone is trying to get a piece of what Apple created - and not suffer the same fate that all those that tried to compete with the iPod faced.
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
JackSYi
Aug 27, 01:02 PM
Bring on the 13.3 inch MacBook Pro.
iBorg20181
Sep 19, 11:17 AM
Except we are going to pay Apple a lot of money. What are you paying me?
LOL - well said!
:cool:
iBorg
LOL - well said!
:cool:
iBorg
tundrabuggy
Mar 31, 03:11 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
This is a short-sighted statement if I've ever seen one. The Apple "Fad" will go away?? Apple is paving the way for all the me-too products to rip-off, oh, I forget, in its proper term, its labeled "competition". First iPhone and iPad are created as explosively successful products, then all the copy-cats come, as Jobs predicted they would. Not an ounce of creativeness from the others, now, linguists and Lawyers are being hired to copy the name "App store" as well, they need to have it to compete. If Apple went away, innovation in this market would stifle for 5 years at least.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
This is a short-sighted statement if I've ever seen one. The Apple "Fad" will go away?? Apple is paving the way for all the me-too products to rip-off, oh, I forget, in its proper term, its labeled "competition". First iPhone and iPad are created as explosively successful products, then all the copy-cats come, as Jobs predicted they would. Not an ounce of creativeness from the others, now, linguists and Lawyers are being hired to copy the name "App store" as well, they need to have it to compete. If Apple went away, innovation in this market would stifle for 5 years at least.
wordmunger
Nov 28, 06:42 PM
They already get 79 cents out of every 99-cent song sold, and they don't have to pay a penny to produce or distribute the music, as they would with CDs. Apple has given them a more efficient way to distribute music, and they come begging for a share of iPod profits. Ridiculous.
reallynotnick
Jul 20, 08:23 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 10:31 PM
Microsoft Office 2007 (Windows) and 2011 (Mac) are not slow.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
yg17
Apr 27, 08:49 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2711155/posts?q=1&;page=101
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
katyoshi
Apr 7, 01:18 AM
This is why I waited for them to update the C2D first before purchasing. I will be buying the top 13". :rolleyes:
donlphi
Nov 29, 12:26 AM
I teach high school kids and I hear them talk about stuff all the time. I know one thing for sure, if kids can't find what they want on iTUNES, they will download it illegally. My thoughts are, if a record company doesn't want to sell their music at iTunes, it's their loss at this point. They could sell some or none. If it isn't available at iTunes, then people only have a few other options.
1. Buy the CD at a retail store (if there is one nearby and stock is available)
2. Go without completely
3. Download a copy from ____________ (fill in the blank)
If I spend $300 on a media player, I will (as will others) find a way to get any music on there.
I don't see Apple giving in unless they TRULY feel the record companies are deserving... which they are not.
1. Buy the CD at a retail store (if there is one nearby and stock is available)
2. Go without completely
3. Download a copy from ____________ (fill in the blank)
If I spend $300 on a media player, I will (as will others) find a way to get any music on there.
I don't see Apple giving in unless they TRULY feel the record companies are deserving... which they are not.
rezenclowd3
Dec 7, 02:53 PM
So another patch for today adding mechanical damage. Must have the newest firmware...
snebes
Apr 11, 12:29 PM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
You do know that Apple's FISCAL Year 2012 starts around the end of September, meaning you would wait around 3-4 months assuming this rumor is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year
I don't mean to single you out, but I see this confusion every time a fiscal year is mentioned, and it bugs me. I don't care if you switch to a different phone. Hell, just get the iPhone 4, it is a world of difference compared to the the iPhone 3G (I just made the switch from 3G to 4 a few months ago, I couldn't stand how slow the 3G was)
You do know that Apple's FISCAL Year 2012 starts around the end of September, meaning you would wait around 3-4 months assuming this rumor is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year
I don't mean to single you out, but I see this confusion every time a fiscal year is mentioned, and it bugs me. I don't care if you switch to a different phone. Hell, just get the iPhone 4, it is a world of difference compared to the the iPhone 3G (I just made the switch from 3G to 4 a few months ago, I couldn't stand how slow the 3G was)
Reach9
Apr 11, 04:45 PM
"Perfectly?" Really?
I can do everything you listed above in iOS just as well as Android - and in many cases better - except in the area of notifications. An area in which iOS truly does suck. How Apple has not yet fixed this boggles the mind.
"Perfectly" as in, in my opinion perfectly. You don't have to agree with me.
No, you can't.
Checking email and Browsing the Internet is better on a bigger screen. Listening to songs is universal. Texting, some Android phones vibrate when you touch the keys making it feel more real. Multitasking, Android did that long before iOS did and does it in a better way, especially with the "kill all open apps" option. Notifications..that's a no brainer. Ability to open Office files, yes the iPhone does that well, but it's much better with a bigger screen. Navigation system..using an Android you don't have to pay $70 (TomTom) for something which should've come with your device. Basic tools, yes iPhone does that too.
Again, it's preference.
If you're going to use "late" as a barometer of success, Android was "later" than iOS at doing just about everything else.
It was late because other Android smartphones already had these features. These are key features that a smartphone should have, and the iPhone didn't. Again, keep in mind my definition of a smartphone is different than yours.
What did Android release which was later than the iOS which defined a smartphone?
Yep, like an...iPad? :p
Yup, but not many people want to lug around a 10" tablet and would like the extra screen real estate on their phones. I know i would.
Of course. Those bajillion apps, most of which completely destroy Android in quality, are an unimportant aside.
If Google thinks like you - that the App Store is merely a "bonus feature" - this war will be won by Apple.
Of course the App Store apps are higher quality, but conveniently you didn't read when i said, for argument sake..
Imagine your iPhone without the App store and all the apps you downloaded from it. Now imagine the HTC EVO without the Android app store. Which is the better smartphone? It's pretty obvious if you ask me.
Anyway, i'll have an iPod Touch for the App Store features. Thus having the best of both worlds, i'll be able to enjoy a productive smartphone using Android, and a nice media device with the App Store.
sure i still use my iPhone 4 for some apps i can't get on the android, but apps r really the only thing that still saves the iPhone. of course its stupid to argue about that on a "mac"rumors site, so i'll just ***** up ^^
Well, apps aren't the only thing that saves the iPhone. But, yeah sadly, you're right.
I can do everything you listed above in iOS just as well as Android - and in many cases better - except in the area of notifications. An area in which iOS truly does suck. How Apple has not yet fixed this boggles the mind.
"Perfectly" as in, in my opinion perfectly. You don't have to agree with me.
No, you can't.
Checking email and Browsing the Internet is better on a bigger screen. Listening to songs is universal. Texting, some Android phones vibrate when you touch the keys making it feel more real. Multitasking, Android did that long before iOS did and does it in a better way, especially with the "kill all open apps" option. Notifications..that's a no brainer. Ability to open Office files, yes the iPhone does that well, but it's much better with a bigger screen. Navigation system..using an Android you don't have to pay $70 (TomTom) for something which should've come with your device. Basic tools, yes iPhone does that too.
Again, it's preference.
If you're going to use "late" as a barometer of success, Android was "later" than iOS at doing just about everything else.
It was late because other Android smartphones already had these features. These are key features that a smartphone should have, and the iPhone didn't. Again, keep in mind my definition of a smartphone is different than yours.
What did Android release which was later than the iOS which defined a smartphone?
Yep, like an...iPad? :p
Yup, but not many people want to lug around a 10" tablet and would like the extra screen real estate on their phones. I know i would.
Of course. Those bajillion apps, most of which completely destroy Android in quality, are an unimportant aside.
If Google thinks like you - that the App Store is merely a "bonus feature" - this war will be won by Apple.
Of course the App Store apps are higher quality, but conveniently you didn't read when i said, for argument sake..
Imagine your iPhone without the App store and all the apps you downloaded from it. Now imagine the HTC EVO without the Android app store. Which is the better smartphone? It's pretty obvious if you ask me.
Anyway, i'll have an iPod Touch for the App Store features. Thus having the best of both worlds, i'll be able to enjoy a productive smartphone using Android, and a nice media device with the App Store.
sure i still use my iPhone 4 for some apps i can't get on the android, but apps r really the only thing that still saves the iPhone. of course its stupid to argue about that on a "mac"rumors site, so i'll just ***** up ^^
Well, apps aren't the only thing that saves the iPhone. But, yeah sadly, you're right.
john123
Sep 19, 09:57 AM
The pre-release tests I saw reckoned Merom was about 25% faster with 7% longer battery life. Though they are pretty meaningless figures and we won't know until Merom is actually in a Macbook and a comparable test can be made.
I'd imagine there will be far bigger improvements to both with Santa Rosa and nand cache (which I presume Apple will support) than there is with Merom.
Check out the iMac benchmarks. The actual speed improvement (i.e., not the Intel hyped numbers) are much more modest.
I'd imagine there will be far bigger improvements to both with Santa Rosa and nand cache (which I presume Apple will support) than there is with Merom.
Check out the iMac benchmarks. The actual speed improvement (i.e., not the Intel hyped numbers) are much more modest.
dernhelm
Nov 29, 05:02 AM
dang it microsoft.
Don't curse Microsoft. They're just doing what they've always done - try to screw over anyone they see as a threat. They can't defeat Apple, but they can screw up the market so bad that it won't matter if Apple is king of the hill.
Curse the idiots that buy the Zune without even knowing what they are doing. Better yet, pass the word. This isn't about the Zune being a nice device or not, this is about the DRM in the thing, and the tax you pay to the music companies even if you don't buy any of their songs.
In the end, the Zune will fail, because it is big, expensive, and has DRM that isn't compatible with anything anyone has ever bought before anywhere. It isn't even Vista compatible yet! But this isn't about the Zune being successful, and I'm beginning to think it never was. The Zune is more about Microsoft trying to throw a wrench into the music download industry - and if it can make Apple less profitable by doing so, then so much the better.
Don't curse Microsoft. They're just doing what they've always done - try to screw over anyone they see as a threat. They can't defeat Apple, but they can screw up the market so bad that it won't matter if Apple is king of the hill.
Curse the idiots that buy the Zune without even knowing what they are doing. Better yet, pass the word. This isn't about the Zune being a nice device or not, this is about the DRM in the thing, and the tax you pay to the music companies even if you don't buy any of their songs.
In the end, the Zune will fail, because it is big, expensive, and has DRM that isn't compatible with anything anyone has ever bought before anywhere. It isn't even Vista compatible yet! But this isn't about the Zune being successful, and I'm beginning to think it never was. The Zune is more about Microsoft trying to throw a wrench into the music download industry - and if it can make Apple less profitable by doing so, then so much the better.
guzhogi
Jul 15, 09:58 AM
I kind of miss the B&W G3 and the Power Mac G4's enclusure where all you needed to do to open it was lift the latch and open it and �voila! All the components right there! W/ the G5/ you have to take off the side and isn't there a clear side panel you have to take off, too?
