Freis968
May 7, 06:33 PM
hmmm ............. iWork.com is free.
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
As far as I recall it is only temporarily free, it is in beta stage if I am correct. There is supposed to be a charge for it eventually.
EDIT: Yep, as you see on the splash page it is still Beta.
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
As far as I recall it is only temporarily free, it is in beta stage if I am correct. There is supposed to be a charge for it eventually.
EDIT: Yep, as you see on the splash page it is still Beta.
SmileyBlast!
May 4, 03:10 PM
thanks for alerting me to this. I had no idea that macrumors took up gbs of my bandwidth cap. :p
lol :)
lol :)
lilo777
Apr 18, 03:37 PM
So you think Apple's goal is to be free R&D for the rest of the industry? :rolleyes:
You are funny. Do you know that Samsung spends 10 times more than Apple on R&D?
You are funny. Do you know that Samsung spends 10 times more than Apple on R&D?
knucles
Sep 17, 01:22 AM
don't you think that is logic the realease of 24' displays?????'''
if imac have 24'; should acd get 23'??????????is coming soon
if imac have 24'; should acd get 23'??????????is coming soon
iMacZealot
Jul 30, 10:04 PM
this is the rumor that comes out when there are no rumors.
I know it's just a rumor that comes and goes just like the Mac Tablet, true video iPod, etc. However, the Intel rumors did materialise, so maybe, but from the source this story's coming from, I highly doubt.
I know it's just a rumor that comes and goes just like the Mac Tablet, true video iPod, etc. However, the Intel rumors did materialise, so maybe, but from the source this story's coming from, I highly doubt.
dwman
May 7, 12:45 PM
This would potentially mean that "Find my iPhone" would be free as well. Maybe?
Tilpots
Apr 9, 08:53 PM
No it doesn't. It is perfectly noted and not ambiguous at all. Feel free to ask any teacher, what do you think is missing from the equation? Btw, what are basing your 100% figure on? Have u asked even one?
(48/2)(9+3) would be straight forward. The way the formula was originally typed lends interpretation as:
48/
2(9+3)
Why would someone choose to group one set with parentheses and not another unless they were being intentionally ambiguous?
Did you call your elementary school teacher? I didn't. They taught me well enough the first time.
(48/2)(9+3) would be straight forward. The way the formula was originally typed lends interpretation as:
48/
2(9+3)
Why would someone choose to group one set with parentheses and not another unless they were being intentionally ambiguous?
Did you call your elementary school teacher? I didn't. They taught me well enough the first time.
crees!
Aug 2, 12:23 PM
Then, unless it is a pharmaceutical, national security, or some other VII, the company needs to get with the times. So called intellectual property is so last century and quite honestly patents are pretty useless in these fast changing times. Any company requiring security clearance most likely will not allow them. Mine does not. It's based on the sensitivity of the environment.
QuarterSwede
Apr 18, 02:52 PM
They don't already have the IP? Suing company and people for the heck of it seems like a broken system to me.
They have patents but they HAVE to pursue infringers or they can lose the rights to the patents. That's why you see so many patent lawsuits. Unfortunately, that's just how the system works (in very basic terms).
They have patents but they HAVE to pursue infringers or they can lose the rights to the patents. That's why you see so many patent lawsuits. Unfortunately, that's just how the system works (in very basic terms).
Eldiablojoe
May 6, 09:35 PM
Just for the sake of being consistent and keeping it simple for everyone. Could you guys keep posting your actions in the Round/Turn model that DP started with?
This made it really easy for everyone to keep up and will probably help those that are less frequent visitors to the thread. I'm sure it's better for our storytellers as well. Just a thought/request.I'm not sure I want to take *any* of your suggestions, seeing how your sole goal is to lead us to hell.
As for the separate groups moving through rooms, I don't see how the larger group can enter one room, then proceed into another room without setting off a trap before tail-end charlie follows along to explore the room. Are you assuming that constant "moving" turns keeps one from falling into a trap?
I'm a bit confused :confused::confused: It's easy to be confused when your swill serving wench of a wife won't even make you a fookin sammich for gawds sake!
This made it really easy for everyone to keep up and will probably help those that are less frequent visitors to the thread. I'm sure it's better for our storytellers as well. Just a thought/request.I'm not sure I want to take *any* of your suggestions, seeing how your sole goal is to lead us to hell.
As for the separate groups moving through rooms, I don't see how the larger group can enter one room, then proceed into another room without setting off a trap before tail-end charlie follows along to explore the room. Are you assuming that constant "moving" turns keeps one from falling into a trap?
I'm a bit confused :confused::confused: It's easy to be confused when your swill serving wench of a wife won't even make you a fookin sammich for gawds sake!
Chase R
May 4, 10:10 PM
My guess:
They offer it on the Mac App Store, and on a USB stick (for about $10 more).
I don't really see how the Mac App Store idea would work, though, since the drive needs to be (well, should be) formatted prior to installation.
I'd opt for the physical OS.
They offer it on the Mac App Store, and on a USB stick (for about $10 more).
I don't really see how the Mac App Store idea would work, though, since the drive needs to be (well, should be) formatted prior to installation.
I'd opt for the physical OS.
res1233
May 6, 05:37 AM
WOW.
First step to a totally closed system. Pretty soon all our applications we want will have to come through the App store for our Macs. The day I see that is the day I turn my Mac OFF.
I will go back to Windows in a heart beat if I am forced to buy my applications and such through Apple.
First off, why do you care where you get your apps from? Second, I highly doubt Apple is going to make Mac OS as closed as iOS. It just makes no sense. They would have to redesign too much of the OS to make it that closed, and they'd have to take away so many features that it wouldn't be the same OS anymore. I doubt Apple is stupid enough to do that. It's true that Apple wants to have as much control over the entire process as they can get, but I firmly believe that there are limits to it. They wont sabotage their own OS because I don't think i've ever met anyone clueless enough to think that that would be a good idea.
First step to a totally closed system. Pretty soon all our applications we want will have to come through the App store for our Macs. The day I see that is the day I turn my Mac OFF.
I will go back to Windows in a heart beat if I am forced to buy my applications and such through Apple.
First off, why do you care where you get your apps from? Second, I highly doubt Apple is going to make Mac OS as closed as iOS. It just makes no sense. They would have to redesign too much of the OS to make it that closed, and they'd have to take away so many features that it wouldn't be the same OS anymore. I doubt Apple is stupid enough to do that. It's true that Apple wants to have as much control over the entire process as they can get, but I firmly believe that there are limits to it. They wont sabotage their own OS because I don't think i've ever met anyone clueless enough to think that that would be a good idea.
thecharlesmoore
Apr 23, 04:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUvXeOTK0-s
sockdoggy
Apr 8, 05:58 PM
Lg and Samsung both are completing multi billion $ plants mid 2011 for OLED panels that next gen iPhones and iPad's will use - Apple has already ordered over $7 billion $ of production to run on these lines.
Yeah- It seems as though Apple has secured the parts they need for production. Plain and simple.
On the other hand, it seems as though RIM announced a product that they hadn't secured any means of production for. Just plain stupid.
The CEO of RIM needs a good talking to by investors. Although I suppose that's already reflected in the share price.
Yeah- It seems as though Apple has secured the parts they need for production. Plain and simple.
On the other hand, it seems as though RIM announced a product that they hadn't secured any means of production for. Just plain stupid.
The CEO of RIM needs a good talking to by investors. Although I suppose that's already reflected in the share price.
QCassidy352
May 8, 05:25 PM
The usefulness of MobileMe just doesn't justify the $99 pricetag -- especially when other services offer something similar for free.
I disagree. First, nobody else offers it all in one place. Second, nobody else has the same simplicity. Third, there are features (most notably, find my iphone) that can't be replicated no matter what other service you use. And when you consider that you can get MM for $60 at Amazon and elsewhere, I think it's more than worth it. $5/month is worth it for any of things I just listed, or even just to be ad-free.
I disagree. First, nobody else offers it all in one place. Second, nobody else has the same simplicity. Third, there are features (most notably, find my iphone) that can't be replicated no matter what other service you use. And when you consider that you can get MM for $60 at Amazon and elsewhere, I think it's more than worth it. $5/month is worth it for any of things I just listed, or even just to be ad-free.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
itcheroni
Apr 15, 11:36 AM
No they do it to manage the negative externalities of capitalism. There is no perfect world where business ventures generate absolute gains for everyone. We have governments (and pay for them) so that life isn't nasty, brutish, and short.
Hong Kong has been wealthy for a long time, and a lot of it is due to the fact that it was a Royal Colony during the Second Industrial Revolution and a major port for the Royal Navy. At the peak of the British Empire, Hong Kong was one of the colonies that received a large boost from the opium trade in China. Modern Hong Kong wasn't dependent on low taxes; it was dependent on aggressive government spending.
As for mainland China, it hasn't been "communist" for a very long time. Moreover, no one is advocating a 100% tax on all goods and services. Anytime you go from one extreme to a moderate position, you'll see improvements.
In the US, we are flirting with the other extreme at this time. Taxes are at historic lows and we have a terrible economy to show for it. Clearly the 0% mantra does not work because as the marginal rate drops further and further, more people find themselves in poverty, unemployed, and with a smaller share of the pie.
You could be right. I've changed my mind a bunch of times before. But I'd like to hear your explanation for why a lower marginal tax rate has caused more people to enter poverty and unemployment.
Hong Kong has been wealthy for a long time, and a lot of it is due to the fact that it was a Royal Colony during the Second Industrial Revolution and a major port for the Royal Navy. At the peak of the British Empire, Hong Kong was one of the colonies that received a large boost from the opium trade in China. Modern Hong Kong wasn't dependent on low taxes; it was dependent on aggressive government spending.
As for mainland China, it hasn't been "communist" for a very long time. Moreover, no one is advocating a 100% tax on all goods and services. Anytime you go from one extreme to a moderate position, you'll see improvements.
In the US, we are flirting with the other extreme at this time. Taxes are at historic lows and we have a terrible economy to show for it. Clearly the 0% mantra does not work because as the marginal rate drops further and further, more people find themselves in poverty, unemployed, and with a smaller share of the pie.
You could be right. I've changed my mind a bunch of times before. But I'd like to hear your explanation for why a lower marginal tax rate has caused more people to enter poverty and unemployment.
JAT
Aug 7, 03:32 PM
Its absolute crap that a ~$600 Macmini has these options standard, and yet Apples $4000 top of the line machine doesnt. Unacceptable.
No, it means that the base Mini would be $530 instead of $600 if wireless wasn't standard. And the base Mac Pro would be $2570 instead of $2500 if it did. At least you have the choice on the Pro.
No, it means that the base Mini would be $530 instead of $600 if wireless wasn't standard. And the base Mac Pro would be $2570 instead of $2500 if it did. At least you have the choice on the Pro.
Watabou
Apr 23, 04:44 PM
That is awesome. I can't wait for a Retina display Macbook Pro. Yeah!
Poudresteve
Jul 22, 10:26 AM
If we don�t see it all on Tuesday. What is the longest Apple can wait? And why would they choose to wait?
I could see Apple waiting a while (at least through the back to school season) while the prices on the Yonah processors plummet, and Apple's laptop profit margin skyrockets to even higher levels. I'm guessing Merom's in the MBP and iMac in September (along with the new nano), just in time for the holiday shopping season.
I could see Apple waiting a while (at least through the back to school season) while the prices on the Yonah processors plummet, and Apple's laptop profit margin skyrockets to even higher levels. I'm guessing Merom's in the MBP and iMac in September (along with the new nano), just in time for the holiday shopping season.
furi0usbee
Apr 26, 02:45 PM
NO NEWS HERE. The real question is "how is Apple still that high?" You can only get iOS on one phone. Android is on, well, *more* than one. You can get iOS phones for two carriers in the US. Android is probably available for every single carrier in the world.
I would think the numbers will eventually be 90%/10%, just like PC vs Mac was for years. Apple could care less about the numbers. Their bank account doesn't lose sleep at night. After all, producing the hardware and software is something even Microsoft never could do. Apple would be over-joyed with 25% phone OS share, probably even much less.
There will always be more android devices. There will be more Android tablets too. Does that mean the iPad isn't the best tablet in the world? Nope.
I've always like the exclusive club called Apple I've belonged to for all these years. I prefer the haters. It just means more Apple goodness for me, and shorter lines at the Apple store.
I would think the numbers will eventually be 90%/10%, just like PC vs Mac was for years. Apple could care less about the numbers. Their bank account doesn't lose sleep at night. After all, producing the hardware and software is something even Microsoft never could do. Apple would be over-joyed with 25% phone OS share, probably even much less.
There will always be more android devices. There will be more Android tablets too. Does that mean the iPad isn't the best tablet in the world? Nope.
I've always like the exclusive club called Apple I've belonged to for all these years. I prefer the haters. It just means more Apple goodness for me, and shorter lines at the Apple store.
jaduffy108
Nov 26, 03:24 PM
I want a Wacom Cintiq with an Apple computer inside.... seems simple enough to *me*.....
dagomike
Nov 17, 10:42 AM
here's a video on the kit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nf-l6_fLXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nf-l6_fLXk
ChrisTX
Mar 27, 12:37 AM
There are claims by some analysts that Amazon is going to kick the crap out of Apple's Maiden, N.C. data center and Netflix in one quick shot with their own cloud service.
For the Kindle, or for their new Appstore? Apple still has the upper hand with iTunes, and the real App Store.
For the Kindle, or for their new Appstore? Apple still has the upper hand with iTunes, and the real App Store.