iMark
Feb 24, 02:33 AM
Thanks, the speakers are Eclipse td307paii
http://www.eclipse-td.net
http://www.eclipse-td.net
autrefois
Oct 23, 10:51 AM
I'm afraid everyone misunderstood the headline.
Latest MacBook Pro Rumors... This Week?
I agree. My prediction is that yes, the latest MacBook Pro rumors will appear this week!!
:D
Latest MacBook Pro Rumors... This Week?
I agree. My prediction is that yes, the latest MacBook Pro rumors will appear this week!!
:D
notabadname
Apr 21, 11:54 AM
Yeah, because Google doesn't track any data on people :rolleyes:
archer75
Apr 19, 11:31 AM
You misunderstood me friend...I meant an HD 6950 2GB (Desktop Card)
Yes, its a pipe dream...but cant a man dream:rolleyes:
Ah yes, well a desktop card would be nice. And the 27" does have the room when compared to the 21". They could engineer it in there if they wanted to.
But yes, I share your dream.
Yes, its a pipe dream...but cant a man dream:rolleyes:
Ah yes, well a desktop card would be nice. And the 27" does have the room when compared to the 21". They could engineer it in there if they wanted to.
But yes, I share your dream.
maceleven
Jan 13, 01:46 AM
Apple and several other companies began lobbying the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates use of the airwaves in the
chutch15
Sep 13, 09:05 AM
There is certainly space.
RMo
May 3, 03:01 AM
No, Microsoft have not got it right. There should be no need for a specific tool to uninstall applications. applications should be self-contained and be deletable with the press of a button�
Many applications work this way on Mac, some developers still put related files into various other locations though unfortunately...
You're missing the point that Windows uninstallers usually, at least, give you the option of cleaning up user data (e.g., things in your profile, usually C:\Users\username\AppData or C:\Documents and Settings\username\Application Data, roughly the equivalent of the ~\Library (and Application Support) folder on OS X.
Yes, this is easily done yourself--if you know where to look. Most users don't. But, on the other hand, this usually doesn't cause any problems, and in most cases it won't take up too much space just to leave it there.
Finally, this would also be easier for applications that do things like install a pref pane (e.g., Growl, Perian--although it actually puts an uninstaller in the pref pane itself). These are few and far between and better have a good reason for doing so, but they are still around.
On the other hand, having a single .App bundle is a great way to encourage the (good, in my opinion) practice of self-contained apps. I thought MS was learning towards this around the dawn of the .NET era, but this seems to have been lost...
Many applications work this way on Mac, some developers still put related files into various other locations though unfortunately...
You're missing the point that Windows uninstallers usually, at least, give you the option of cleaning up user data (e.g., things in your profile, usually C:\Users\username\AppData or C:\Documents and Settings\username\Application Data, roughly the equivalent of the ~\Library (and Application Support) folder on OS X.
Yes, this is easily done yourself--if you know where to look. Most users don't. But, on the other hand, this usually doesn't cause any problems, and in most cases it won't take up too much space just to leave it there.
Finally, this would also be easier for applications that do things like install a pref pane (e.g., Growl, Perian--although it actually puts an uninstaller in the pref pane itself). These are few and far between and better have a good reason for doing so, but they are still around.
On the other hand, having a single .App bundle is a great way to encourage the (good, in my opinion) practice of self-contained apps. I thought MS was learning towards this around the dawn of the .NET era, but this seems to have been lost...
aquajet
Sep 6, 09:17 AM
These new Mac Mini's don't seem like a great deal anymore. I think it was done on purpose to get people to upscale to a higher model.
I think the $599 model, now with the core duo of course, is a good deal. I can't really say the same thing about the $799 model.
Although, a refurb core solo can now be had for $479. :)
I think the $599 model, now with the core duo of course, is a good deal. I can't really say the same thing about the $799 model.
Although, a refurb core solo can now be had for $479. :)
bokdol
Mar 24, 01:14 PM
i would love to buy an off the shelf gpu for half the price of a mac branded amd card. please let this be true then i will not sell my 2008 macpro
foodle
Mar 25, 06:32 PM
Oh man---I got the iPad to get the kids off the TV. Now I'm going to have to get another TV!
Are you crazy?!? The iPad is like a TV on steroids. My daughter is salivating at the prospect of my iPad 2 arriving, which means she gets the iPad 1.
Are you crazy?!? The iPad is like a TV on steroids. My daughter is salivating at the prospect of my iPad 2 arriving, which means she gets the iPad 1.
twoodcc
Feb 17, 06:27 AM
Sorry to hear that, when will you be able to get back to your apartment to get everything started again?
My points are down too for some reason, not sure what the problem is as everything is running ok.
i won't get back to my apartment before april. so another month and half of no output basically unless i manage to get another system.
i just don't know what happened. they were running fine before i left.
btw, congrats on 9 million points!
My points are down too for some reason, not sure what the problem is as everything is running ok.
i won't get back to my apartment before april. so another month and half of no output basically unless i manage to get another system.
i just don't know what happened. they were running fine before i left.
btw, congrats on 9 million points!
QCassidy352
Aug 24, 06:13 PM
the new intel integrated graphics isn't ready, is it? So these will be merom minis with a GMA 950?
Compile 'em all
Jan 6, 05:52 AM
11.05 New kernel for Mac OS X. Mac OS X high level subsystems built upon Windows. New operating system. "Mac OS W". Leopard is Mac OS W 11.0.
11.08 "Best of Apple, Best of Microsoft, everything will 'just work' from now on"
WTF!
11.08 "Best of Apple, Best of Microsoft, everything will 'just work' from now on"
WTF!
Cheffy Dave
Jun 24, 01:46 AM
That's a very old render. I doubt MacAllen made it. Plus, why would you want a transparent display on a desktop? I can almost understand it on a window, but on a desktop it just looks like ****.
but it's all about what appears in that window,and sort of disappears when not in use, anyway it all just conjecture, not cast in stone, chill, it's just discussion ,yes???;)
but it's all about what appears in that window,and sort of disappears when not in use, anyway it all just conjecture, not cast in stone, chill, it's just discussion ,yes???;)
balamw
Sep 7, 12:01 AM
It seems to me that the distribution of 480i content is pretty much settled. Netflix and Blockbuster do this well and at very competitive prices. I can't see that Apple would benefit much from trying to compete there.
I agree with you, except for the fact that Netflix already carries both BluRay and
HD-DVD formats, so Apple would be directly competing with them in HD videos.
My 2 720p HDTVs are salivating at the possibilities...
B
I agree with you, except for the fact that Netflix already carries both BluRay and
HD-DVD formats, so Apple would be directly competing with them in HD videos.
My 2 720p HDTVs are salivating at the possibilities...
B
dmw007
Nov 15, 08:24 AM
Next Tuesday...
Oh good! :D
***gets credit card ready***
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
I enjoyed that benchmark result as well. :D :)
Oh good! :D
***gets credit card ready***
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
I enjoyed that benchmark result as well. :D :)
princealfie
Nov 30, 10:49 AM
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Hurrah, the RIAA loses again :D
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Hurrah, the RIAA loses again :D
Lord Blackadder
Mar 9, 02:46 PM
Interesting thoughts iGav. The sum total of your criticisms seems to me to indicate that automakers are much more conventional these days (at least when it comes to packaging), making innovation much more difficult. Part of this situation is undoubtedly due to the fact that there are a lot more laws governing the design of cars these days. In the days of the mini, (or DS, or the Traction Avant, or even further back the Model T) there was perhaps less conventional wisdom than there is now - resulting in a proliferation of vastly different designs in terms of overal packaging. Apparently it's up to the Indians to get creative with their Tata Nano.
These days, only the FF layout is considered suitable for an economy car. Everything else is rocking the boat. Perhaps, as with Horatio Nelson's tactics, an innovation eventually becomes hidebound tradition and stifles subesquent development?
As for the Korean flavor of the new Chevy, it may be dull by European standards but we love Hondas over here so tastes are different. Also, anyone who has ever driven a US-market Chevy Cavalier looks in wonder at the level of quality that the Korean cars bring to the party. The Koreans not only sneaked up on the Big Three, they also sneaked up on the Japanese and even some of the Europeans.
And that still makes me wonder what the hell Ford was doing by not building and selling their much better Euro-Fords here in the states. They completely missed the boat on that one - and are arguably still doing so by limiting our engine choices on the Focus and Fiesta and thus reducing the overall economy of the vehicle lineup.
These days, only the FF layout is considered suitable for an economy car. Everything else is rocking the boat. Perhaps, as with Horatio Nelson's tactics, an innovation eventually becomes hidebound tradition and stifles subesquent development?
As for the Korean flavor of the new Chevy, it may be dull by European standards but we love Hondas over here so tastes are different. Also, anyone who has ever driven a US-market Chevy Cavalier looks in wonder at the level of quality that the Korean cars bring to the party. The Koreans not only sneaked up on the Big Three, they also sneaked up on the Japanese and even some of the Europeans.
And that still makes me wonder what the hell Ford was doing by not building and selling their much better Euro-Fords here in the states. They completely missed the boat on that one - and are arguably still doing so by limiting our engine choices on the Focus and Fiesta and thus reducing the overall economy of the vehicle lineup.
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
partyBoy
Nov 28, 05:23 PM
One of the most UNDERrated games...it is awesome
doberman211
Mar 22, 06:37 PM
We'll just see what happens. I bought the 160 not too long ago so i won't be upgrading but it's good to know it's still around. 4571 songs of uncompressed audio and counting. gotta love the classics.
ojwk
Jan 12, 08:22 AM
I don't see how the external optical drive falls into the category of things to be "defended." The others, sure, because you don't have the choice of the name, the graphics card, or mid-tower. But so far the rumours suggest the external optical drive is optional (as in, buy a MacBook or MacBook Pro with built-in drive - this isn't across the product line). What I see are people hoping for a feature: a lighter notebook.
What I'm saying is that people are condoning Apple's decision to have an optional external optical drive just like everything else despite Apple from suggesting nothing of the sort. My point is that people will condone any decision Apple makes for no good reason.
What I'm saying is that people are condoning Apple's decision to have an optional external optical drive just like everything else despite Apple from suggesting nothing of the sort. My point is that people will condone any decision Apple makes for no good reason.
GregA
Mar 22, 04:32 PM
A price drop and some minor update (such as wifi, bluetooth capabilities, ios capable) might happen. I think updating the classic's internal's and functionality might be feasible. But I doubt they will touch the physical appearance of it.
But re-inventing the classic would defeat the purpose of calling it 'classic'.
The Ipod Touch is their outlet for innovations now. Though, I wonder when the touch, would simple be called the iPod (drop the touch from the name).
I was referring more to the benefit of having a large storage portable device, in conjunction with Apple's rumoured portable logins.
But yes if they make it look like an iPod Touch, then it wouldn't really be an iPod classic. I'm not sure how they would add iOS though without changing the look, unless iOS was purely for the background features. Or perhaps a click wheel AND touch screen would still be a "classic".
But re-inventing the classic would defeat the purpose of calling it 'classic'.
The Ipod Touch is their outlet for innovations now. Though, I wonder when the touch, would simple be called the iPod (drop the touch from the name).
I was referring more to the benefit of having a large storage portable device, in conjunction with Apple's rumoured portable logins.
But yes if they make it look like an iPod Touch, then it wouldn't really be an iPod classic. I'm not sure how they would add iOS though without changing the look, unless iOS was purely for the background features. Or perhaps a click wheel AND touch screen would still be a "classic".
skunk
Mar 27, 04:57 AM
Well, the US controls the AWACSThe AWACS involved are owned and operated by NATO. There may not even be US personnel on board.
No comments:
Post a Comment