Rowbear
Apr 4, 05:56 AM
My 1 year-old a couple of days before his first birthday (click for larger).
http://gallery.me.com/crebelein/100053/IMG_5637/web.jpg
Give him the "high five" from all us here. I wish you all the best. :)
http://gallery.me.com/crebelein/100053/IMG_5637/web.jpg
Give him the "high five" from all us here. I wish you all the best. :)
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Beautiful Short Hairstyles of
Selena Gomez#39;s Short Hairstyle
more...
selena gomez short hairstyles.
short haircuts selena gomez
more...
selena gomez short hair
Actress Selena Gomez attends A
more...
selena gomez short haircut
Selena+Gomez+Short+Hairstyles
more...
Selena+Gomez+Short+Hairstyles
selena gomez short hairstyles
more...
Elegant Short Hairstyles of
selena gomez short hair photos
more...
selena gomez hairstyles short.
selena gomez hair
more...
selena gomez short hair.
selena gomez short hairstyles
selena gomez haircut short.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
MacNut
May 2, 02:31 AM
Why?Islamic rule or something.
Xavier
Oct 23, 11:45 AM
What is this thing?
Its a bicycle roller, used like this:
http://citybicycleworks.com/images/library/site/calender_mar9_rollers_m.jpg
for training
Its a bicycle roller, used like this:
http://citybicycleworks.com/images/library/site/calender_mar9_rollers_m.jpg
for training
more...
Detlev_73
Jun 6, 10:22 AM
You sound like a wonderful human being.
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
Mac Fly (film)
Aug 15, 05:07 PM
It looks like the menu text default has dropped from 14pt Lucida Grande in Tiger to 13pt Lucida Grande in Leopard -- a welcome change.
I looked, and I don't see what you see?
I looked, and I don't see what you see?
more...
mrblack927
May 3, 08:02 AM
How can it be TFT and IPS?!! That makes no sense quite honestly... Pish Posh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD
IPS is a type of TFT screen. Just like TN (what you're thinking of) is a type of TFT screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD
IPS is a type of TFT screen. Just like TN (what you're thinking of) is a type of TFT screen.
Goldinboy17
May 1, 10:13 PM
That's kinda how I feel about this. Would have been great if we captured him (though that started to feel unrealistic, what, seven years ago?) but this was the inevitable outcome. Don't feel any real positive emotion out of it because of how long it took, and how the most damage of 9/11 came from our response in my opinion, but yay I guess? I don't believe he was very active in Al Qaeda anymore, and even if he was, he's an easy replacement.
I agree, however it'll still deal a great blow in moral to many of our enemies.
I agree, however it'll still deal a great blow in moral to many of our enemies.
more...
MRiOS
Dec 1, 10:36 AM
I mainly want
http://storeimages.apple.com/1774/as-images.apple.com/is/image/AppleInc/MC742?wid=326&hei=326&fmt=jpeg&qlt=95&op_sharpen=0&resMode=bicub&op_usm=0.5,0.5,0,0&iccEmbed=0&layer=comp
but I wouldn't say no to these either
http://www.adannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Verizon-iPhone-3.jpg
http://storeimages.apple.com/1774/store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/gifting/astro/apple-card-tall.jpg
http://storeimages.apple.com/1774/as-images.apple.com/is/image/AppleInc/MC742?wid=326&hei=326&fmt=jpeg&qlt=95&op_sharpen=0&resMode=bicub&op_usm=0.5,0.5,0,0&iccEmbed=0&layer=comp
but I wouldn't say no to these either
http://www.adannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Verizon-iPhone-3.jpg
http://storeimages.apple.com/1774/store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/gifting/astro/apple-card-tall.jpg
WildCowboy
Oct 18, 04:35 PM
Having looked at the numbers in more detail it is interesting that compared to the year ago quarter desktop sales are relatively static and pretty much all the growth in mac shipments is in the portable lines. Good to see Apple add 1bn to revenue anyhow.
I'd imagine that it's partly due to the long-term industry-wide shift toward portables.
I'd imagine that it's partly due to the long-term industry-wide shift toward portables.
more...
yac_moda
Jul 26, 05:31 PM
Yes and it states "a touch screen display" "For multifunctional handheld devices".
"The method includes sensing an object spaced away and in close proximity to the electronic device. The method also includes performing an action in the electronic device when an object is sensed." Meaning when I'm close to touching the darn thing do/show this when this is happening on screen.
Did you read it?
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/part_1_apple_files_proximity_detector_in_handheld_device_patent_application/
EDIT: Still not "touchless" either....
"For example, when using a touch sensing device along with a proximity detection system, advanced gestures may be performed that combine proximity gestures along with touch gestures."
UW, sounds like reflecting the fingers to the screen ...
... THAT IS ONE CREEPY BOWSER :confused: :eek: POOR OLD BABY POOP !!!
"The method includes sensing an object spaced away and in close proximity to the electronic device. The method also includes performing an action in the electronic device when an object is sensed." Meaning when I'm close to touching the darn thing do/show this when this is happening on screen.
Did you read it?
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/part_1_apple_files_proximity_detector_in_handheld_device_patent_application/
EDIT: Still not "touchless" either....
"For example, when using a touch sensing device along with a proximity detection system, advanced gestures may be performed that combine proximity gestures along with touch gestures."
UW, sounds like reflecting the fingers to the screen ...
... THAT IS ONE CREEPY BOWSER :confused: :eek: POOR OLD BABY POOP !!!
al256
Jun 6, 08:23 AM
Where's the personal responsibility/Apple shouldn't do things for their customer comments? I thought that was all the rage now a days...
more...
iSee
Apr 16, 06:27 PM
Why would you need 64 bit for a MBA? To fly off those huge sample libraries that the processor would lock up over?
64 bit is only for massive memory allocations and a MBA doesn't even have the CPU to pull it off... :rolleyes:
At this point I think it's mainly a matter of keeping the platform unified. Why support two kernals longer than you have to? The sooner Apple makes 64-bit the default, the sooner they can dump the 32-bit kernal altogether.
64 bit is only for massive memory allocations and a MBA doesn't even have the CPU to pull it off... :rolleyes:
At this point I think it's mainly a matter of keeping the platform unified. Why support two kernals longer than you have to? The sooner Apple makes 64-bit the default, the sooner they can dump the 32-bit kernal altogether.
SilianRail
Apr 11, 05:06 PM
Could this be the eventual end of usb altogether?No way, USB is cheap and there's no reason to replace them for low bandwidth applications like keyboard, mouse, printers, controllers, etc.
more...
Surely
Sep 13, 11:15 PM
threadless has some cool designs. I've been to the store in Chicago.... it was refreshing to be able to try them on before i bought them!
I bought a pint of frozen yogurt here tonight. Half Ghirardelli Chocolate, half Chocolate Butterfinger. So good.
251561
I bought a pint of frozen yogurt here tonight. Half Ghirardelli Chocolate, half Chocolate Butterfinger. So good.
251561
motulist
Aug 15, 09:43 PM
While their at it, the same feature could not only order the ram or hard drive for you, but using the the new iCal server features could have at look at the nearest Apple Store and give you list of free booking times to drop in and have the upgrade done for you.
That would be another useful feature for users which would also be profitable for Apple. Jobs should be paying us money for all these great ideas!
That would be another useful feature for users which would also be profitable for Apple. Jobs should be paying us money for all these great ideas!
more...
vader_slri
Apr 18, 09:53 AM
Very true. Plus, turbo mode is mostly marketing hype. It should be called turbo fraud. It doesn't work the way it's advertised, ie, most of the time when you need it to. So, what you're really getting is a 1.4 GHZ computer that's advertised as a 2.3 GHZ one. That's taking marketing hype to the extreme. The only way I would buy a computer with one of Intel's turbo hyped CPU's is if the bottom score met my needs. I would never rely on the hyped theoretical upper score in making my decision and in this case 1.4 GHZ doesn't cut it for me.
Intel's marketing only specifies the base processor speed, not the turbo speed. For example, the i5-2537M under discussion here is advertised as a 1.4GHz chip. Guess what? Its base clock speed is 1.4GHz. It can turbo up to 2.3GHz but it is in no way advertised as being a 2.3GHz chip. Here is the product sheet directly from Intel:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54619&processor=i5-2537M&spec-codes=SR03W
Intel's marketing only specifies the base processor speed, not the turbo speed. For example, the i5-2537M under discussion here is advertised as a 1.4GHz chip. Guess what? Its base clock speed is 1.4GHz. It can turbo up to 2.3GHz but it is in no way advertised as being a 2.3GHz chip. Here is the product sheet directly from Intel:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54619&processor=i5-2537M&spec-codes=SR03W
Melrose
Feb 1, 04:27 AM
I've lived next door to people like him. If you idolize this man, you have a screw loose.
spillproof
Sep 30, 01:10 AM
I never knew people were experiencing this many dropped calls. I guess I don't make calls enough to experience all the fail. AT&T is the only phone company I've had, so I don't know any different. If Verizon did get the iPhone, I'm sure their network would struggle a bit too.
0815
Apr 26, 12:22 PM
You wouldn't consider paying $20 per YEAR?
I'm amazed how people always expect to get everything for free ... they want to have the best of the best without paying anything because the think they just 'deserve' it ...
Hell, why would you assume they are not charging for it?
The usual pattern is to get some small teaser for free (either time limited or small storage amount) to get you hooked and when you like it you pay for it. [Just like I got hooked on the free dropbox and now pay for the 100GB plan because I love it so much]
And seriously: $20/year is almost free.
I'm amazed how people always expect to get everything for free ... they want to have the best of the best without paying anything because the think they just 'deserve' it ...
Hell, why would you assume they are not charging for it?
The usual pattern is to get some small teaser for free (either time limited or small storage amount) to get you hooked and when you like it you pay for it. [Just like I got hooked on the free dropbox and now pay for the 100GB plan because I love it so much]
And seriously: $20/year is almost free.
notjustjay
Apr 26, 02:16 PM
not everyone wants a dedicated home server that they load everything on and let it run 24 hours a day. We just have a MBA.... i'm not gonna load all my music on there and leave it plugged in 24 hours a day. Just not gonna happen.
Exactly. It's more than just the $5 for the app and the data cap/bandwidth issues. It is wear and tear on a machine that has to be left on 24/7. It is the hydro cost of running that machine 24/7 instead of turning it off when you go out (this alone may well add up to more than $20/year!) If you don't want your main machine on 24/7 then it is the cost of another Mac mini or NAS or other device to act as the server instead.
It is also wear and tear on your 2 TB drive that has to be on 24/7, as opposed to working more like a backup drive that's only activated occasionally to back up your music files. It is the hassle of ensuring AudioGalaxy and your server and your ISP internet connection are all up and running when you need them to be (dealing with power outages, internet outages, maintenance, restarts, software updates, etc.)
$20/year might well be worth it for the uptime and hydro considerations alone.
Exactly. It's more than just the $5 for the app and the data cap/bandwidth issues. It is wear and tear on a machine that has to be left on 24/7. It is the hydro cost of running that machine 24/7 instead of turning it off when you go out (this alone may well add up to more than $20/year!) If you don't want your main machine on 24/7 then it is the cost of another Mac mini or NAS or other device to act as the server instead.
It is also wear and tear on your 2 TB drive that has to be on 24/7, as opposed to working more like a backup drive that's only activated occasionally to back up your music files. It is the hassle of ensuring AudioGalaxy and your server and your ISP internet connection are all up and running when you need them to be (dealing with power outages, internet outages, maintenance, restarts, software updates, etc.)
$20/year might well be worth it for the uptime and hydro considerations alone.
caspersoong
Apr 29, 09:05 PM
That's tempting. Only if it were available here. Why isn't it?
vincenz
Apr 28, 04:57 PM
Imagine if someone at Foxconn accidentally hit the number next to the one he was supposed to hit ;)
Don't panic
Apr 27, 08:59 PM
maybe i should just vote myself huh?
you wouldn't be the first, nor the second, nor the third...
never helped before.
you wouldn't be the first, nor the second, nor the third...
never helped before.
No comments:
Post a Comment