tdream
Mar 29, 11:39 AM
LoL. Yeah guys just predict the next 4 years, no probs :p
Where were you guys when I needed you in 2007 :eek:
Where were you guys when I needed you in 2007 :eek:
!� V �!
Apr 30, 06:21 PM
Bought monitors with anti-glare coatings. And monitor hoods.
My first computer was a PowerBook G3 and after that it was an LCD iMac (not the Luxo). Never had to ever use a CRT other than school and even then it sucked big time. I feel privileged. With the release of all this gloss glass monitors from :apple:, I am saving a boat load of money by simply not upgrading to the crap offerings and just use a Dell monitor and update to a Mac Mini or MacPro when the time presents itself to upgrade.
Thank you :apple: for not offering any Anti-Glare across the entire hardware lineup. :p
My first computer was a PowerBook G3 and after that it was an LCD iMac (not the Luxo). Never had to ever use a CRT other than school and even then it sucked big time. I feel privileged. With the release of all this gloss glass monitors from :apple:, I am saving a boat load of money by simply not upgrading to the crap offerings and just use a Dell monitor and update to a Mac Mini or MacPro when the time presents itself to upgrade.
Thank you :apple: for not offering any Anti-Glare across the entire hardware lineup. :p
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 06:01 PM
It's seems to me that it's unlikely that the cost of litigation could have exceeded the cost of a settlement, so does that show that Apple expected to be found liable for patent infringement as charged?
I don't know...with five lawsuits between the companies, I wouldn't be surprised if the litigation would have cost at least $100 million. But I do think Apple wasn't terribly confident...
Edit: The estimates I've seen say that a typical patent infringement case costs up to $5 million per side. This would probably be higher than a typical case, with $100 million in total not out of the question.
I don't know...with five lawsuits between the companies, I wouldn't be surprised if the litigation would have cost at least $100 million. But I do think Apple wasn't terribly confident...
Edit: The estimates I've seen say that a typical patent infringement case costs up to $5 million per side. This would probably be higher than a typical case, with $100 million in total not out of the question.
Hardtimes
Apr 20, 01:08 PM
Just don't go anywhere
Steve
Sent from my iphone
Steve
Sent from my iphone
DelisleBA.info
Apr 22, 12:02 PM
I hope they bring back the backlit keyboard.
Hunts121
Jul 14, 09:57 AM
It's a mess to open up the iMac and take the heatsink/CPU assembly off. Even I think it's scary. :eek:
haha I never said I'd attempt it, just that its possible :D
haha I never said I'd attempt it, just that its possible :D
thworple
Oct 27, 09:32 AM
I was there yesterday, and all Greenpeace did was hand out leaflets at the entrance to people entering the Expo at the Olympia. Hardly the actions of a "militant eco-group". I honestly didn't see them do anything else out of the ordinary, especially compared to other stand-holders who also roamed freely around the exhibition giving out leaflets etc.
I saw them in the pub across the road in the afternoon, and they looked they were having a hasty meeting about what had transpired. One would assume that "chucking them out" is only going to have an adverse effect on the publicity Apple receives about its attitude to "green issues" (although in this instance it wasn't Apple themselves that had Greenpeace removed, instead it was the MacExpo organisers).
Its a real shame, as they weren't doing any real harm, I think they have probably been harshly treated in this instance!
I saw them in the pub across the road in the afternoon, and they looked they were having a hasty meeting about what had transpired. One would assume that "chucking them out" is only going to have an adverse effect on the publicity Apple receives about its attitude to "green issues" (although in this instance it wasn't Apple themselves that had Greenpeace removed, instead it was the MacExpo organisers).
Its a real shame, as they weren't doing any real harm, I think they have probably been harshly treated in this instance!
tpg
Apr 25, 01:27 PM
What about the screen? Are they finally moving to 16:9 screens?
I hope not - retaining the 16:10 aspect ratio is one thing I really admire about Apple's notebooks. (11inch Air aside)
16:9 displays are cheaper to manufacture, but from a usability/aesthetic point of view 16:10 is superior IMO. Vertical space is at a premium, particularly on a laptop screen. Also, 16:10 is pretty darn close to the golden ratio...
I hope not - retaining the 16:10 aspect ratio is one thing I really admire about Apple's notebooks. (11inch Air aside)
16:9 displays are cheaper to manufacture, but from a usability/aesthetic point of view 16:10 is superior IMO. Vertical space is at a premium, particularly on a laptop screen. Also, 16:10 is pretty darn close to the golden ratio...
TheKrillr
Sep 5, 05:57 PM
Strange, the movie store is the thing that I am least excited about :confused: But I still hope for new imac and/or mbp.
Why is it everyone says "Ooooh i want a new macbook pro!"? I personally like the macbooks much better. The keyboard is nicer IMO, and I prefer the smaller size and the solid-color as opposed to the metallic finish.
I want a new Macbook, but ONLY if they upgrade the one i ordered last tuesday... >.>
Why is it everyone says "Ooooh i want a new macbook pro!"? I personally like the macbooks much better. The keyboard is nicer IMO, and I prefer the smaller size and the solid-color as opposed to the metallic finish.
I want a new Macbook, but ONLY if they upgrade the one i ordered last tuesday... >.>
Small White Car
Apr 25, 01:17 PM
Oh boo hoo. No new case since 2008?
We Mac-Pro user are so very sad for you.
We Mac-Pro user are so very sad for you.
fblack
Sep 10, 06:11 PM
Do you really want to use a monitor from 10 years ago in everyday use? Not likely. I've a 15" CRT from about a decade ago too but it's sitting on a shelf as a spare in case my newer monitor dies.
Most times I've bought a new computer, I've also bought a new monitor. A widescreen 17" monitor back when I bought my iMac was extortionately expensive. I generally figure on spending about �15-1800 every three years on a computer and about 5-6 years of useful life. It's been going up from a G3 iBook to a 17" G5 Mac to a fully kitted out 24" iMac for that money. I can't imagine what it will be in 3 - 6 years time but I guess it'll make a 24" iMac feel just as obsolete as the 500Mhz G3 iBook with a 1024x768 screen feels.
I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is. I've been programming for 20+ years professionally and your screen isn't something to skimp on. It's THE most important thing if you value your eyes.
I think you mistook the slant of my post. Notice the big grin face at the end of my sentence in the previous post? I meant it half in jest. It does not mean that as I type I am staring at a 14" screen. As far as my 6 yr old CRT that died it was a 19inch not a tiny screen and certainly hefty at about 60lbs. My 10yr old CRT that has been permanently retired now was in fact used as a backup monitor for my old beige G3. I've had more than one monitor go before and having a backup even if it has small screen real estate can save your bacon if you've got work to do. :p
I would love to have the budget to replace all of my equipment every 3 years like you can but I dont have that luxury. If I can have a piece of equipment last a little longer you may call it cheap from your fancy perch, but I call it frugal. Good budgeting should never be sneered at...:D
Most times I've bought a new computer, I've also bought a new monitor. A widescreen 17" monitor back when I bought my iMac was extortionately expensive. I generally figure on spending about �15-1800 every three years on a computer and about 5-6 years of useful life. It's been going up from a G3 iBook to a 17" G5 Mac to a fully kitted out 24" iMac for that money. I can't imagine what it will be in 3 - 6 years time but I guess it'll make a 24" iMac feel just as obsolete as the 500Mhz G3 iBook with a 1024x768 screen feels.
I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is. I've been programming for 20+ years professionally and your screen isn't something to skimp on. It's THE most important thing if you value your eyes.
I think you mistook the slant of my post. Notice the big grin face at the end of my sentence in the previous post? I meant it half in jest. It does not mean that as I type I am staring at a 14" screen. As far as my 6 yr old CRT that died it was a 19inch not a tiny screen and certainly hefty at about 60lbs. My 10yr old CRT that has been permanently retired now was in fact used as a backup monitor for my old beige G3. I've had more than one monitor go before and having a backup even if it has small screen real estate can save your bacon if you've got work to do. :p
I would love to have the budget to replace all of my equipment every 3 years like you can but I dont have that luxury. If I can have a piece of equipment last a little longer you may call it cheap from your fancy perch, but I call it frugal. Good budgeting should never be sneered at...:D
GorgonPhone
Mar 22, 03:14 PM
with mac minis and imacs there is no reason to buy mac pros any more at all...lol
aristobrat
Sep 4, 09:03 PM
Exactly! I think other potential twists would include a video Airport Express with a built-in TV tuner (to stream tv content back to your iMac/Mac Pro for recording, or an optional built-in HD for local storage when you don't have your Mac on or something.
I'd be surprised if Apple did anything with TV tuners.
With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.
I'd be surprised if Apple did anything with TV tuners.
With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.
MrNomNoms
Apr 30, 08:58 PM
Anger management is a good thing.
Not that but realising his posts are massively off topic. This article is about the iMac and nothing to do with the operating system itself.
Not that but realising his posts are massively off topic. This article is about the iMac and nothing to do with the operating system itself.
law guy
Sep 11, 08:38 PM
This is huge news. Where is everybody?!? :confused:
Am I the only one here who thinks this is gigantic news? I can hear a pin drop. The stunned silence is deafening. :eek: ;)
I agree - this is really something. As has been noted, it's just huge the increase in a short amount of time - the original Core release was only a short while back, then Core 2 Duo - which just made it into the iMacs - and now the Core 2 Quad release date of Mid-October! The pace is just astounding.
Not only that, but as Arn and others note, the Quad Xeons are on the way as well. So, there is the path for 8 core Mac Pros in the very near future.
Quad core iMacs, 8 core PMs (opps, I mean Mac Pros) - oh my.
This amazing chip release rate - and significant increases each - will really put Apple to the test in terms of updating products quickly to stay competitive in terms of hardware release. In the past, Apple had to deal with chip upgrades so infrequently. It's a great problem to have, I suppose.
I also echo the comments above re: isn't this the kind of thing that makes you glad Apple switched to Intel? Absolutely.
Am I the only one here who thinks this is gigantic news? I can hear a pin drop. The stunned silence is deafening. :eek: ;)
I agree - this is really something. As has been noted, it's just huge the increase in a short amount of time - the original Core release was only a short while back, then Core 2 Duo - which just made it into the iMacs - and now the Core 2 Quad release date of Mid-October! The pace is just astounding.
Not only that, but as Arn and others note, the Quad Xeons are on the way as well. So, there is the path for 8 core Mac Pros in the very near future.
Quad core iMacs, 8 core PMs (opps, I mean Mac Pros) - oh my.
This amazing chip release rate - and significant increases each - will really put Apple to the test in terms of updating products quickly to stay competitive in terms of hardware release. In the past, Apple had to deal with chip upgrades so infrequently. It's a great problem to have, I suppose.
I also echo the comments above re: isn't this the kind of thing that makes you glad Apple switched to Intel? Absolutely.
jettredmont
Aug 23, 09:35 PM
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
IMHO, this is the primary motivation for the settlement from Apple's perspective. $100M isn't really "nothing" as others have suggested (believe me, Steve fights for every $100M going into the bank, and doubly hard when it leaves again!) However, it's a fairly cheap obstruction to throw down on Zune.
Will MS license Creative's patent too? Note that the press release says that if others license then Apple gets some reimbursement.
If MS refuses to license, will that $100M fund a legal battle against them next? It will go a ways towards that battle, anyway. And, Creative vs MS is a lot more likely for Creative to win than Creative vs (MS and Apple). This settlement adds credibility to Creative's claims.
IMHO, $100M spent here will help Apple in the iPod:Zune battle at least as much as $100M spent on marketing would have. Plus, it eliminates the overhang of the legal action and potential settlement/decision down the line.
IMHO, this is the primary motivation for the settlement from Apple's perspective. $100M isn't really "nothing" as others have suggested (believe me, Steve fights for every $100M going into the bank, and doubly hard when it leaves again!) However, it's a fairly cheap obstruction to throw down on Zune.
Will MS license Creative's patent too? Note that the press release says that if others license then Apple gets some reimbursement.
If MS refuses to license, will that $100M fund a legal battle against them next? It will go a ways towards that battle, anyway. And, Creative vs MS is a lot more likely for Creative to win than Creative vs (MS and Apple). This settlement adds credibility to Creative's claims.
IMHO, $100M spent here will help Apple in the iPod:Zune battle at least as much as $100M spent on marketing would have. Plus, it eliminates the overhang of the legal action and potential settlement/decision down the line.
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 11:48 PM
I've owned SMP machines in the past and often found it more useful to force CPU affinity of CPU-heavy tasks to a single processor, as Windows 2000 (which was current at the time) by default had a habit of swapping it between chips, resulting in a lot of cache-dirtying....
However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I came to the opposite conclusion....
Running many compute-bound single-threaded benchmarks and apps - I saw how NT (pre Win2k) would balance across CPUs (that is, a "100%" compute-bound job would show each CPU running at 50%).
However, setting affinity so that one CPU was 100% and the other was 0% had no significant effect on the run times. (And by "significant" I mean statistically significant - I literally ran hundreds of runs in each configuration.)\\
By the way, with Win2k3 (and XP 64-bit, really the same system) you see much less "balancing" - a single-threaded app will stick to a CPU for much longer.
However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I came to the opposite conclusion....
Running many compute-bound single-threaded benchmarks and apps - I saw how NT (pre Win2k) would balance across CPUs (that is, a "100%" compute-bound job would show each CPU running at 50%).
However, setting affinity so that one CPU was 100% and the other was 0% had no significant effect on the run times. (And by "significant" I mean statistically significant - I literally ran hundreds of runs in each configuration.)\\
By the way, with Win2k3 (and XP 64-bit, really the same system) you see much less "balancing" - a single-threaded app will stick to a CPU for much longer.
JAT
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
gyrogeerloose
Apr 28, 07:03 PM
ROFL! I totally see what you're saying. Why can't people just avoid fanboyish behavior? Both companies make some great products. Both companies make bad products too. *shrugs*
I think it's a holdover from the bad old days in the mid-nineties, when Microsoft was riding high with Windows 95. Apple was at it's nadir, the common wisdom was that it was going to go under and Michael Dell said that if it were up to him, he'd sell the company and give the money back to the shareholders. Only the die-hard fans disagreed.
Fast forward fifteen years: not only did Apple survive, it has now surpassed the behemoth Microsoft in profitability. Under those circumstances, please don't complain about us diehards gloating just a little bit...
I think it's a holdover from the bad old days in the mid-nineties, when Microsoft was riding high with Windows 95. Apple was at it's nadir, the common wisdom was that it was going to go under and Michael Dell said that if it were up to him, he'd sell the company and give the money back to the shareholders. Only the die-hard fans disagreed.
Fast forward fifteen years: not only did Apple survive, it has now surpassed the behemoth Microsoft in profitability. Under those circumstances, please don't complain about us diehards gloating just a little bit...
MacAddict1978
Apr 30, 04:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
No offense, but it's rather likely the following revision will launch a refined design. (It's usually done in the fall refresh historically.) This design is rather old and still fashions the old poly carbonite white i-Mac design. Changing the material to unibody aluminum was just a material change that gave it a "newer more modern" look, but it still wasn't a full on redeux. The last major complete redesign was when it went from the iLamp to this form factor.
Though maybe 1 more year.... not quite sure what more than can do with the design except maybe ditch the entire bezzle for 21.5-27" of sexy screen.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
No offense, but it's rather likely the following revision will launch a refined design. (It's usually done in the fall refresh historically.) This design is rather old and still fashions the old poly carbonite white i-Mac design. Changing the material to unibody aluminum was just a material change that gave it a "newer more modern" look, but it still wasn't a full on redeux. The last major complete redesign was when it went from the iLamp to this form factor.
Though maybe 1 more year.... not quite sure what more than can do with the design except maybe ditch the entire bezzle for 21.5-27" of sexy screen.
jamesryanbell
Apr 22, 11:24 AM
Yeah, I'm still unconvinced the Intel IGP is on par with NVIDIA's 320M IGP.
Me either. The argument that they're on par with each other under OSX....well, I just don't want to believe that. I've already got it in my head that it's a lesser graphics card. It can't really be as good.
Me either. The argument that they're on par with each other under OSX....well, I just don't want to believe that. I've already got it in my head that it's a lesser graphics card. It can't really be as good.
lmalave
Oct 27, 10:19 AM
Thank you, Greenpeace. Public awareness is what it's all about. If Apple does not like it, maybe it's time to shape up and actually try to live up to the "environmentally friendly" image that they have been trying to create.
Implicit in this comment is that Apple "didn't like" Greenpeace and tried to shut them down. Why the assumption that Apple was behind this? If this MacExpo is anything like the MacWorlds here in the U.S., then it's not run directly by Apple., so it would've been the decision of whoever was running MacExpo to actually kick Greenpeace out...
Implicit in this comment is that Apple "didn't like" Greenpeace and tried to shut them down. Why the assumption that Apple was behind this? If this MacExpo is anything like the MacWorlds here in the U.S., then it's not run directly by Apple., so it would've been the decision of whoever was running MacExpo to actually kick Greenpeace out...
dongmin
Sep 5, 03:40 PM
Quoted from an older thread that has been left behind:
Somebody cast doubt on the HDMI thing, I don't know - just seemed like the easiest option to get video into an iMac. You don't have to worry about all the different methods of getting TV (free to air, digital, cable) because if you have a HDMI-enabled receiver it would just plug into the back of the iMac. You'd need to use the receiver's remote to do all the channel changing but Apple could offer some sort of recording program. EyeHome could do something with it too? I'm no expert, just trying to look at a simple solution for a complicated, fragmented problem.I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
Somebody cast doubt on the HDMI thing, I don't know - just seemed like the easiest option to get video into an iMac. You don't have to worry about all the different methods of getting TV (free to air, digital, cable) because if you have a HDMI-enabled receiver it would just plug into the back of the iMac. You'd need to use the receiver's remote to do all the channel changing but Apple could offer some sort of recording program. EyeHome could do something with it too? I'm no expert, just trying to look at a simple solution for a complicated, fragmented problem.I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
Dont Hurt Me
Oct 27, 09:25 AM
Free speech was killed decades ago by every business along with every govts help. Green Peace agreed though to keep it in the booth, they didnt so they are to blame. This is a Mac expo not a tree huggers convention.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar