viperGTS
Apr 14, 04:12 PM
When is the Verizon iPhone going to get the 4.3 love?
It aint love, i can tell you that.
It aint love, i can tell you that.
mdelvecchio
Apr 26, 04:53 PM
Apple has 1 datacenter, and zero experience running a cloud service.
and i cant think of ANY example where apple got into a new field and kicked the crap out of the old hats. can you? hmmm.....
gotta go, phone call -- on my apple cell phone!!
and i cant think of ANY example where apple got into a new field and kicked the crap out of the old hats. can you? hmmm.....
gotta go, phone call -- on my apple cell phone!!
danvdr
Apr 25, 04:52 PM
Whaa? That young? I have a 4 year old MBP that just about copes with aperture.
I've been taking a photography class and I'm getting tired of beachballs and seeing the word "processing".
I've been taking a photography class and I'm getting tired of beachballs and seeing the word "processing".
OceanView
Mar 17, 10:48 AM
Heard Brea had only 9 iPads today. Anyone confirm? Over 100+ waiting in line. Crazy.
Brea had 15 wifi only.
125+ people.
Brea had 15 wifi only.
125+ people.
more...
Happybunny
Oct 23, 10:59 AM
The new MacBook Air, 11.6'' base model. Going to New York during christmas and will buy there the new Air. Here in The Netherlands it costs 1000 euro, in the USA it's around 700 euro (converted dollar - euro). Difference of 300 euro!
That's what I did in 2008 when the Original Mac Book Air came out, it saved at the time more than �450.:)
That's what I did in 2008 when the Original Mac Book Air came out, it saved at the time more than �450.:)
Glass
Jul 11, 03:48 PM
They will. Microsoft doing this will definitely cause Apple to be less stingy with the R&D and get some great small products to market.
God, I really hope that Leopard is more of an upgrade than Tiger was.
You don't think tiger was a significant upgrade? wtf?? lol.. it was packed with new features.
God, I really hope that Leopard is more of an upgrade than Tiger was.
You don't think tiger was a significant upgrade? wtf?? lol.. it was packed with new features.
more...
fr4c
Oct 27, 12:06 PM
My medical degree.
notabadname
Apr 28, 11:00 AM
It is an impressive market share to be commanded by a single product line, versus numerous hardware manufacturers running Android. No single Android product even comes close.
more...
mikerr
May 3, 08:11 AM
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
Previous iMac HD upgrades have involved removing the screen - yes, really.
Hope these are better in that respect.
UK prices start at �999 for the 21.5" with 2.5GHz quad-core i5, vs $1,199
that's a really poor exchange rate dollar to pound !
Previous iMac HD upgrades have involved removing the screen - yes, really.
Hope these are better in that respect.
UK prices start at �999 for the 21.5" with 2.5GHz quad-core i5, vs $1,199
that's a really poor exchange rate dollar to pound !
siryn
Apr 14, 10:07 AM
Nope, I'm also on the original and had it since the first day of release.
amen, brother (sister?).. i, too, am in the original iphone club. i didn't think the 3G or 3GS were worthy of an upgrade.. but iphone 4 was beautiful and i was finally ready. unfortunately, i fell in love with the white so i waited.. and waited..
it's been a very painful 10 months, but now that i've waited this long, i'm trying to be strong and hold out for the iphone 5. i wish i knew whether it was coming out in june or september. if september for sure, i would just get the iphone 4.. argh.
amen, brother (sister?).. i, too, am in the original iphone club. i didn't think the 3G or 3GS were worthy of an upgrade.. but iphone 4 was beautiful and i was finally ready. unfortunately, i fell in love with the white so i waited.. and waited..
it's been a very painful 10 months, but now that i've waited this long, i'm trying to be strong and hold out for the iphone 5. i wish i knew whether it was coming out in june or september. if september for sure, i would just get the iphone 4.. argh.
more...
fyrefly
Apr 20, 01:32 AM
We now have some actual game results now and it seems even worse than the 50% drop seen in the original review.
Instead of 50% of the performance of the 320M, we now have:
26% at a lower resolution in Wow
34% for Lost planet
Those numbers seem to suggest the ULV SAndy Bridge has even worse graphics performance than the previous generation Nvidia 9400M
Gaming performance. Not graphics performance. Don't confuse the two.
Engadget's review said the Intel IGP made short work of 1080p HD clips, so regarding pushing pixels (that aren't games) the HD 3000 seems on par at doing that as the 320m.
Also, I'd venture to day the HD 3000 graphics drivers are more advanced in OSX than they are in Windows.
The same mysterious drop in Gaming performance was seen in Windows vs. OSX in the Anandtech review of the 13" 2011 MBP (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/7):
"Under OS X, the new HD Graphics 3000 GPU is actually about the same performance or even faster than the 2010 13-inch's GeForce 320M. Remember that Apple does a lot of its own driver writing under OS X and the SNB GPU received some TLC from Apple in the form of very well optimized drivers."
And yes, I know the MBP uses a fully clocked IGP and the MBA probably won't.
But if even a fully clocked IGP sucks in Windows and works almost on par with the 320m in OSX, then I'd like to at least see the LV HD3000 benchmarks in OSX before making a final judgement.
it is only 29min. Not sure where you get almost 1 hour from. And it was measured in Windows, so I think this is the most comparable number. Mac OS is known to be better at using less power than Windows. From this, I'd say there would be a marginal increase in battery life by switching to Sandy Bridge - nothing major.
Hah. My bad. I was adding like adding, and not like time adding.
I'd take even a marginal increase in battery life, though, who wouldn't?
And I'd also venture to say that Apple's doing better at battery life than most other manufacturers. The 13" 2011 MBP added 10W to it's TDP and (like you say below) Sandy Bridge seems like it's sneaky with it's turbo boosting - and still the 2011 MBP gets better battery life than it's C2D+320m sibling from last year.
TDP is not the whole story .. for example the 2011 i7 2.3Ghz Sandy Bridge Quad Core is supposed to have a TDP of 45W, which is 10W more than the i7
2.66Ghz 2010 model. However, Anandtech measured the 2011 machine using almost 40W more running a CPU intensive task. Something is very weird about the Sandy Bridge TDP numbers.
Hmm, interesting, I hadn't seen that comparison yet (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14).
The GPU must come into play in both those test, however... so 45W + 25W = 70W out of the 93W used are accounted for in TDP.
And the 13" MBP pulls 48W instead of it's 35W TDP. It's interesting.
I wish we had seen comparable numbers for the current MBA. Does it pull more than advertised under load? How much? If not, why not? Is turbo boost to blame?
My point was based purely on TDP and not high-end scenarios, the battery life should be longer. Wireless web surfing is how Apple measures it now - and I couldn't see the SL9400/9600+320m combo posting better battery numbers in a wireless web test than the i5/HD3000 combo? That leads me to say unless one was doing high-end Rendering with their MBA - the general web-surfing, itunes playing, facebook-checking Mac user will not see anymore than the ~20W TDP come into play, giving that user longer battery life, no?
Instead of 50% of the performance of the 320M, we now have:
26% at a lower resolution in Wow
34% for Lost planet
Those numbers seem to suggest the ULV SAndy Bridge has even worse graphics performance than the previous generation Nvidia 9400M
Gaming performance. Not graphics performance. Don't confuse the two.
Engadget's review said the Intel IGP made short work of 1080p HD clips, so regarding pushing pixels (that aren't games) the HD 3000 seems on par at doing that as the 320m.
Also, I'd venture to day the HD 3000 graphics drivers are more advanced in OSX than they are in Windows.
The same mysterious drop in Gaming performance was seen in Windows vs. OSX in the Anandtech review of the 13" 2011 MBP (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/7):
"Under OS X, the new HD Graphics 3000 GPU is actually about the same performance or even faster than the 2010 13-inch's GeForce 320M. Remember that Apple does a lot of its own driver writing under OS X and the SNB GPU received some TLC from Apple in the form of very well optimized drivers."
And yes, I know the MBP uses a fully clocked IGP and the MBA probably won't.
But if even a fully clocked IGP sucks in Windows and works almost on par with the 320m in OSX, then I'd like to at least see the LV HD3000 benchmarks in OSX before making a final judgement.
it is only 29min. Not sure where you get almost 1 hour from. And it was measured in Windows, so I think this is the most comparable number. Mac OS is known to be better at using less power than Windows. From this, I'd say there would be a marginal increase in battery life by switching to Sandy Bridge - nothing major.
Hah. My bad. I was adding like adding, and not like time adding.
I'd take even a marginal increase in battery life, though, who wouldn't?
And I'd also venture to say that Apple's doing better at battery life than most other manufacturers. The 13" 2011 MBP added 10W to it's TDP and (like you say below) Sandy Bridge seems like it's sneaky with it's turbo boosting - and still the 2011 MBP gets better battery life than it's C2D+320m sibling from last year.
TDP is not the whole story .. for example the 2011 i7 2.3Ghz Sandy Bridge Quad Core is supposed to have a TDP of 45W, which is 10W more than the i7
2.66Ghz 2010 model. However, Anandtech measured the 2011 machine using almost 40W more running a CPU intensive task. Something is very weird about the Sandy Bridge TDP numbers.
Hmm, interesting, I hadn't seen that comparison yet (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14).
The GPU must come into play in both those test, however... so 45W + 25W = 70W out of the 93W used are accounted for in TDP.
And the 13" MBP pulls 48W instead of it's 35W TDP. It's interesting.
I wish we had seen comparable numbers for the current MBA. Does it pull more than advertised under load? How much? If not, why not? Is turbo boost to blame?
My point was based purely on TDP and not high-end scenarios, the battery life should be longer. Wireless web surfing is how Apple measures it now - and I couldn't see the SL9400/9600+320m combo posting better battery numbers in a wireless web test than the i5/HD3000 combo? That leads me to say unless one was doing high-end Rendering with their MBA - the general web-surfing, itunes playing, facebook-checking Mac user will not see anymore than the ~20W TDP come into play, giving that user longer battery life, no?
countach
Oct 23, 07:54 AM
This is incorrect.
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the licensed device.
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform.
The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.
It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the licensed device.
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform.
The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.
It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.
more...
deloreanz
Mar 15, 05:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Well I got to see Mystikal and Hasan Daddy get theirs after my failed attempt at Irvine spectrum. I was the Asian guy with the buzz cut hair. Unfortunately I got to Fashion Island to late. Congrats to you two!
Same here, I was the guy who went to south coast plaza first.
Well I got to see Mystikal and Hasan Daddy get theirs after my failed attempt at Irvine spectrum. I was the Asian guy with the buzz cut hair. Unfortunately I got to Fashion Island to late. Congrats to you two!
Same here, I was the guy who went to south coast plaza first.
zync
Jul 28, 01:15 PM
True, but as i have send in a previous thread about MS, the people behind their XBox division are actually "cool" and creative and MS is said to be giving them lots of freedom. Let's not wholeheartly disregard our competition here - even though it feels good to do so!
Also true, but they're not cool enough that people would want to advertise that they have one. That's where Apple is ahead. It's cool to have an iPod, it's cool to have a Mac. I never got compliments on my computer when I had a boring POS Dell.
Also true, but they're not cool enough that people would want to advertise that they have one. That's where Apple is ahead. It's cool to have an iPod, it's cool to have a Mac. I never got compliments on my computer when I had a boring POS Dell.
more...
br0adband
Nov 7, 04:04 AM
To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant" - and yes, I've had 4 kernel panics since I got this iMac home; that's more than the number of BSODs I've had under XP in 4 years.
Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.
Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.
You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.
On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).
So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.
Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:
I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:
It just works.
Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.
bb
Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.
Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...
Which means -- as everyone is saying -- that there is something wrong with your computer. I have a MacBook, two Intel iMacs, and a Mac Pro in my house, and they do not crash despite heavy daily use. My poor Mac Pro is running three different operating systems right now using Parallels, with nary a complaint. If you are getting unexplained kernel panics on a clean install of Mac OS X, then you have a hardware problem.
Hardware problems can affect any OS -- I've seen Windows systems that get daily BSODs. It's not because "Windows sucks", it's because there was a sub-par memory chip or somesuch in the system. Likewise Mac OS X crashes, when nobody else is experiencing a problem, are not an indication of the stability of the OS but rather of your hardware.
You're quoting me back to me when all of us (including me) were talking about that other guy that is having hardware problems because his Parallels "sucks." Parallels kicks ass on my C2D 20" iMac - hence the reason I piped up to be the first to say something is wrong with the other guy's machine if he can't get it working right.
On mine, which is stock hardware except for the 2GB of RAM I have in it, Parallels starts up in 4 seconds, boots my XP VM in 9-10, shuts down in 3-4, restarts the same VM in under 5 seconds (have yet to figure that one out, probably because of caching someplace; I don't even see the XP splash screen when it reboots/restarts because it's so fast), suspends in 22-25 seconds, resumes in 30-34, and I have no issues with any hardware at all in my XP VM. I even burn CDs and DVDs from the XP VM over FireWire/USB without hassles (Plextor FireWire/USB external).
So, on a similarly configured piece of hardware, if he's having suspend/resume times that seem to be 4-6x longer than others then, as you said, there is something wrong with the hardware. If none of the rest of us are having said issues, your line of logic would follow and apply to his machine since he's the only one reporting such ridiculously long suspend/resume times among other things.
Parallels works for me. Since I can't post specific benchmark data for Parallels and that other new-on-the-scene virtualization software for Macs <hint, hint> I'll just say this:
I completed the testing I said I was going to do, and Parallels simply lays the smackdown across that other software. And yes I'm well aware that other software is in beta - or pre-beta late alpha as one person put it - and that's fine. But I paid for Parallels, and to use that most famous line about Macs:
It just works.
Oh yeah, it beats that other software even with multi-core CPU support enabled. Go figure.
bb
Parallels sucks but until now its been the only REAL game in town.
Ah... the clarion call of lamers. Might as well bash Windows since it's so pervasive while you're at it. And it's still no excuse for stealing the software and breaking the faith. Bleh...
Goettel
Nov 23, 07:05 PM
Keep in mind some of the people in this thread are using Mac Pros.
Which client are you using? Are both cores being used?
I'm using the default Folding@home client from standford's site. FahMon and F@H WUdget report the core as Gromacs SMP, and it is using both cores. I noticed with activity monitor that it has spawned 4 threads each using around 45-50% CPU which is a bit odd as it is only a dual core machine with no HT. The PPD is at around 1080 and it is going at 1.66x minimum speed. What do you think?
Which client are you using? Are both cores being used?
I'm using the default Folding@home client from standford's site. FahMon and F@H WUdget report the core as Gromacs SMP, and it is using both cores. I noticed with activity monitor that it has spawned 4 threads each using around 45-50% CPU which is a bit odd as it is only a dual core machine with no HT. The PPD is at around 1080 and it is going at 1.66x minimum speed. What do you think?
more...
patrickvanzandt
Sep 30, 09:51 AM
The headline for this story is misleading based on the data provided.
All we have is ONE Apple engineer's case notes mentioning
Proposed Resolution: this is a basic trouble shooting case so that the customer may report back to ATT to show that the phone is fully functional and the problem is consistent with the service provided by ATT
All the tech is saying is "the iPhone is fully functional", or in other words: there is no evidence of a hardware issue on this customer's iPhone.
Nowhere does it say anything about what AT&T considers "normal". This engineer does not even work for AT&T. She's simply saying that she confirmed that this particular unit seems to be OK on a hardware level and referred the customer to AT&T for resolution.
Move along...
All we have is ONE Apple engineer's case notes mentioning
Proposed Resolution: this is a basic trouble shooting case so that the customer may report back to ATT to show that the phone is fully functional and the problem is consistent with the service provided by ATT
All the tech is saying is "the iPhone is fully functional", or in other words: there is no evidence of a hardware issue on this customer's iPhone.
Nowhere does it say anything about what AT&T considers "normal". This engineer does not even work for AT&T. She's simply saying that she confirmed that this particular unit seems to be OK on a hardware level and referred the customer to AT&T for resolution.
Move along...
chris975d
Apr 28, 04:40 PM
Exactly.
So either these pics are of a conversion kit white iPhone or these kits in fact followed the same specs of the Apple white door - which is slightly bigger too.
I could now see it being either of these two possibilities. Originally I just chalked it up to the aftermarket stuff being cheaply made and not being manufactured to precise measurements, but if the Apple white OEM parts are in fact thicker, it's obvious these aftermarket makers already somehow knew of the increase in thickness, and were following those specs (and have been for quite some time now).
So either these pics are of a conversion kit white iPhone or these kits in fact followed the same specs of the Apple white door - which is slightly bigger too.
I could now see it being either of these two possibilities. Originally I just chalked it up to the aftermarket stuff being cheaply made and not being manufactured to precise measurements, but if the Apple white OEM parts are in fact thicker, it's obvious these aftermarket makers already somehow knew of the increase in thickness, and were following those specs (and have been for quite some time now).
houdinize
Jun 6, 10:50 AM
If this was on an iPod Touch isn't there a mb cutoff where you have to use your computer, or is that just for 3G and just a suggestion when on wifi?
tomokun
Jul 24, 04:40 PM
I dont think I could ever go to a Mighty mouse, however i always thought that it should have been bluetooth. I have a bluetooth apple mouse (that came with my iMac) and my Logitech MX1000. The logitech is much more comfortable, i cant stand using the small apple mouse for long periods of time.
I could see this as better than mightymouse, however its nothing to make me want to buy one. The logitech is better.
I could see this as better than mightymouse, however its nothing to make me want to buy one. The logitech is better.
deus_ex_machina
Apr 26, 12:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously, can you do anything without Apple getting their cut? It seems odd that you would buy music from them then have to pay to store it. It's like earning your paycheck after income and state tax are taken out and then buying something with the money and getting charged sales tax on it.
Isn't that the way US commerce works now?!?!?
and this isn't something you're obligated to do - this is an optional service of convenience. :rolleyes:
Seriously, can you do anything without Apple getting their cut? It seems odd that you would buy music from them then have to pay to store it. It's like earning your paycheck after income and state tax are taken out and then buying something with the money and getting charged sales tax on it.
Isn't that the way US commerce works now?!?!?
and this isn't something you're obligated to do - this is an optional service of convenience. :rolleyes:
G4DP
Apr 1, 04:54 AM
Unfortunately this is the chintzy sort of rubbish that the iSheep love. So it's probably here for good.
Nice one Arn with the April fool's stuff.
Nice one Arn with the April fool's stuff.
LT Peanut
Nov 29, 04:26 PM
Warrior Cats?
Precisely! Do you read the books too? I would assume so, hehe
Precisely! Do you read the books too? I would assume so, hehe
RawBert
Dec 29, 05:40 PM
When one starts approaching the weight of worlds fattest person they can no longer get to the toilet. So I feel sorry for the person with bed pan duty:eek::eek::eek:.
Oh God! *dry heave* You're right.
I'm sure fried chicken drumsticks sometimes get wedged in between her rolls for months at a time. Perhaps even whole chickens.
Oh God! *dry heave* You're right.
I'm sure fried chicken drumsticks sometimes get wedged in between her rolls for months at a time. Perhaps even whole chickens.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق