surf2snow1
Mar 24, 04:09 PM
Grrrrr, I can't decide. Looks like I'll probably get the 32GB.. 399 + $45 taxes. Anyone think $444 worth it for the older 32 or do better deals exist? I'm somewhat convinced since it is new.
I'm debating 16 or 32. It's for the wife to take to the gym with her.
I'm debating 16 or 32. It's for the wife to take to the gym with her.
dukebound85
Apr 24, 04:23 AM
why isnt my fah using cpu cycles? i dl's the client and started it in sys prefs
never mind, its going
never mind, its going
Fuzzy14
Dec 23, 06:59 AM
Have you really not heard of Leona Lewis? I'm always suspicious of people who wear this kind of statement as a badge of pride...
I've heard the name, couldn't tell you what songs she sings. But let me guess, it's some middle of the road pop?
Stupidity, ignorance and sloth isn't a badge of pride!
I've heard the name, couldn't tell you what songs she sings. But let me guess, it's some middle of the road pop?
Stupidity, ignorance and sloth isn't a badge of pride!
firestarter
Apr 5, 07:22 PM
Frankly Apple should just commit to Thunderbolt and put those ports right on there. There is really no need for any other port.
Except they want to sell iPhones and iPads to PC owners who will probably have USB3, not Thunderbolt.
Except they want to sell iPhones and iPads to PC owners who will probably have USB3, not Thunderbolt.
more...
Veldek
May 4, 07:43 AM
Hey,
One can't argue about taste. I think the reasons you described for being a pc user are good ones. Usually mac users don't buy a mac because of the gaming but for the ease of use and stability.
You might argue that your pc is indeed stable and you know how to use it. Well, if it's okay for you then all right. My experiences haven't been so good. It got on my nerves, how often error messages popped up when I was just using the pc for normal tasks and how often an installation couldn't be finished because of hardware incompatibilties.
Still this hasn't become better, I think. At work, I get a special error message every day, which says something like "unexpected error". Well, as often as this one pops up, you can't call it unexpected any longer and that's what my collegues and me are joking about (grim humour). Also, my friends pc is shutting down suddenly since he installed something needed for his games. He couldn't find out yet, what he can do.
All these things make me feel I made the right choice when switching three years ago.
I have one question: What do you as a convinced pc user do on this site?
One can't argue about taste. I think the reasons you described for being a pc user are good ones. Usually mac users don't buy a mac because of the gaming but for the ease of use and stability.
You might argue that your pc is indeed stable and you know how to use it. Well, if it's okay for you then all right. My experiences haven't been so good. It got on my nerves, how often error messages popped up when I was just using the pc for normal tasks and how often an installation couldn't be finished because of hardware incompatibilties.
Still this hasn't become better, I think. At work, I get a special error message every day, which says something like "unexpected error". Well, as often as this one pops up, you can't call it unexpected any longer and that's what my collegues and me are joking about (grim humour). Also, my friends pc is shutting down suddenly since he installed something needed for his games. He couldn't find out yet, what he can do.
All these things make me feel I made the right choice when switching three years ago.
I have one question: What do you as a convinced pc user do on this site?
HexMonkey
Jun 1, 05:48 AM
Sorry, I wasn't trying to change what you said or anything, I was just using what you said (that the list would become quite long) as a reason for why we should reduce the total amount of articles by merging articles wherever possible.
I'm not sure that reducing category sizes is a good reason to merge articles. We shouldn't do anything that makes it harder to find something within an article once you're there, especially since categories are just one way to find articles - in fact, just 2% of page views in the Guides (of actual content pages, excluding things like the search page) are for viewing one of the root level categories.
They're split off from the main software category because of the perception that a lot of users may not want to look at the Terminal... it does reduce the amount of articles in the main software category.
I wasn't the one who created the Terminal Commands category, but I'd be very surprised if that was the reason it was created. Again, these articles are in a different category because it's a logical grouping - no different to similar categories such as Games and Networking and Internet Software. As someone who uses the Terminal extensively, I find it much more useful this way.
I'm not sure that reducing category sizes is a good reason to merge articles. We shouldn't do anything that makes it harder to find something within an article once you're there, especially since categories are just one way to find articles - in fact, just 2% of page views in the Guides (of actual content pages, excluding things like the search page) are for viewing one of the root level categories.
They're split off from the main software category because of the perception that a lot of users may not want to look at the Terminal... it does reduce the amount of articles in the main software category.
I wasn't the one who created the Terminal Commands category, but I'd be very surprised if that was the reason it was created. Again, these articles are in a different category because it's a logical grouping - no different to similar categories such as Games and Networking and Internet Software. As someone who uses the Terminal extensively, I find it much more useful this way.
more...
SpaceMagic
Apr 3, 06:45 AM
I don't actually know why Apple are bothering. MS Office is the best program on my Mac. It does everything I could possibly want.. and more.
Big D 51
Apr 24, 08:23 PM
A screen that would rotate and lay flat on the keyboard. Once in this position, turns into an iPad.
This was way I can have an 11" laptop and iPad for whichever I am
Needing to use at the moment without having to carry two machines.
This was way I can have an 11" laptop and iPad for whichever I am
Needing to use at the moment without having to carry two machines.
more...
zenio
Feb 19, 06:18 AM
From that picture I can correctly diagnosis that Larry Ellison would probably be a jerk
Not as big of a jerk as Jobs... not even close.
Not as big of a jerk as Jobs... not even close.
davegregory
Mar 29, 10:56 AM
Poor OP...
more...
void
Sep 15, 10:26 PM
I hate to say this but, Intel really designed a good chip. The P4 still has alot of life in it even though the P5 is going to be introduced in 2nd QTR of 2003. The G4 either has to step aside for the Power4 or really get it's act together.
Tyre
Jun 10, 02:38 PM
this analyst needs to do better homework. the t-mobile 3g band isn't supported on any of the iphones, including the iphone 4.
As opposed to what, the new CDMA iPhone? As was stated by screensaver400 it would be much easier to add a 1700 band than redesign for CDMA (though numerous rumors have suggested that Apple is preparing a CDMA iPhone.)
As for carriers, look what the iPhone does to networks, both here and abroad. How much complaining do you hear about AT&T and O2 as exclusive carriers? The huge strain on their networks balances out the publicity and business they've gotten from being the sole cell companies offering the iPhone. The unlimited data plan castration will follow the iPhone wherever it goes. It could make a comeback as networks improve, but I doubt it because bandwidth expansion is accompanied with larger/more complex files.
Add an iPhone potentially video conferencing over 3g plus multitasking and no carrier would be willing to shoulder that data load.
As opposed to what, the new CDMA iPhone? As was stated by screensaver400 it would be much easier to add a 1700 band than redesign for CDMA (though numerous rumors have suggested that Apple is preparing a CDMA iPhone.)
As for carriers, look what the iPhone does to networks, both here and abroad. How much complaining do you hear about AT&T and O2 as exclusive carriers? The huge strain on their networks balances out the publicity and business they've gotten from being the sole cell companies offering the iPhone. The unlimited data plan castration will follow the iPhone wherever it goes. It could make a comeback as networks improve, but I doubt it because bandwidth expansion is accompanied with larger/more complex files.
Add an iPhone potentially video conferencing over 3g plus multitasking and no carrier would be willing to shoulder that data load.
more...
iJohnHenry
Apr 6, 05:38 PM
It would encourage efficiency massively
And a paucity of lawyers holding public office. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif
And a paucity of lawyers holding public office. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif
ThaDoggg
Mar 25, 08:35 AM
Greedy or not, if Apple and RIM are part of some patent infringement they have to pay up.
more...
ethical
Dec 16, 07:22 PM
I would like to know if all these people swarming to buy the RAtM track actually care about Christmas number 1's. I wonder if anyone does?
Of course they don't. Most of them probably just want to be involved in the commotion, so they can put their hand up and say "yeah, I downloaded that track, suck it Cowell!"
Of course they don't. Most of them probably just want to be involved in the commotion, so they can put their hand up and say "yeah, I downloaded that track, suck it Cowell!"
Nermal
Jun 11, 12:41 PM
Why on earth did T-Mobile decide to build out a network that was so strange that no one else isues it and basically phones are going to have custom radios in them to work.
If T-Moblie used more of a stardard frequency, they would be running MILLIONS of iPhones right now even though you can't buy one from T-Mobile.
Operators need to buy rights to spectrum, and there are practical limits to the number of operators that can use a particular chunk of spectrum. T-Mobile can't use the more "standard" frequencies because they don't have licenses for them, and additional licenses may not be available.
Of course, if you really want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile, you can get an unlocked one and run it on GSM.
If T-Moblie used more of a stardard frequency, they would be running MILLIONS of iPhones right now even though you can't buy one from T-Mobile.
Operators need to buy rights to spectrum, and there are practical limits to the number of operators that can use a particular chunk of spectrum. T-Mobile can't use the more "standard" frequencies because they don't have licenses for them, and additional licenses may not be available.
Of course, if you really want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile, you can get an unlocked one and run it on GSM.
more...
Ish
Mar 4, 07:29 AM
http://jddavis.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v0/p1055447075-5.jpg
There's a lot more going on here than I thought at first glance. There's not only the contrast between the bright flowers and the dark background, which is what I noticed first, but there's also the contrast between the front and the back of the flowers and thirdly red and green are on opposite sides of the colour wheel. Well done JD!
I went out to make use of the first bit of sunshine I've seen for ages:
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7522/contrasth.jpg
There's a lot more going on here than I thought at first glance. There's not only the contrast between the bright flowers and the dark background, which is what I noticed first, but there's also the contrast between the front and the back of the flowers and thirdly red and green are on opposite sides of the colour wheel. Well done JD!
I went out to make use of the first bit of sunshine I've seen for ages:
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7522/contrasth.jpg
EightmanVT
Apr 13, 10:53 PM
I was planning to have guns blazing indiscriminately but I guess I can silently hover if that's the game plan :mad:
clintob
Oct 27, 01:40 PM
I really want .mac, but it's just not compelling enough.
I keep my bookmarks sync'd between my Mac at home and my PC at work in Firefox with Foxmarks. Free extension.
I use gmail and yahoo for webmail. 2+gb of storage each. I'm debating which to stick with for calendar. I can use gmail and sync ical to it right now. However someone is already starting a service (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/spanningsync/browse_thread/thread/33374a59c38cbe15)which will let you completely sync Google cal and ical by being able to make changes to both (effectively duplicating what .mac gives you)
I could convert another gmail account into storage space with a plug in. Right now I use mediamax (http://www.mediamax.com/) for 25gb of FREE storage.
Flickr offers ways to publish right from iphoto for a very easy and free way to share photos online.
So for me to cough up the dough, .mac needs more, much more.
All of the above are compeltely valid points. However, there are two large weaknesses to this idea.
First, you're assuming that .mac users want to use Firefox as their browser. Many of us believe strongly that Safari is a better browser. I don't use plugins or extensions - I want my browser clean, slick, and simple. I like my fonts to appear the way they're intended. I was my interface consistent with the rest of my Apps.
Second, and more importantly, look at what you've done in each point. You've addressed each of .mac's features using a separate third party. Sure, you can duplicate any number of the features elsewhere. The reason .mac is useful is because it's all in one place. For many users, the idea of having to to Google for their Mail, Flickr for their photos, MediaMax for their storage, and all the while depend on third-party plugins to make it go round... it all just sounds like a headache. Sure, if you know what you're doing it works fine. But $8.25 a month really isn't that much for the simplicity and ease-of-use that .mac offers the average user.
Sure, we'd all love to see .mac get better. And I'm sure in time it will, but let's stop hating on it so much. For the day-to-day user, .mac is a great tool, simple and easy to use, and really isn't all that expensive in the scheme of things. It's two latte's a month... big deal.
I keep my bookmarks sync'd between my Mac at home and my PC at work in Firefox with Foxmarks. Free extension.
I use gmail and yahoo for webmail. 2+gb of storage each. I'm debating which to stick with for calendar. I can use gmail and sync ical to it right now. However someone is already starting a service (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/spanningsync/browse_thread/thread/33374a59c38cbe15)which will let you completely sync Google cal and ical by being able to make changes to both (effectively duplicating what .mac gives you)
I could convert another gmail account into storage space with a plug in. Right now I use mediamax (http://www.mediamax.com/) for 25gb of FREE storage.
Flickr offers ways to publish right from iphoto for a very easy and free way to share photos online.
So for me to cough up the dough, .mac needs more, much more.
All of the above are compeltely valid points. However, there are two large weaknesses to this idea.
First, you're assuming that .mac users want to use Firefox as their browser. Many of us believe strongly that Safari is a better browser. I don't use plugins or extensions - I want my browser clean, slick, and simple. I like my fonts to appear the way they're intended. I was my interface consistent with the rest of my Apps.
Second, and more importantly, look at what you've done in each point. You've addressed each of .mac's features using a separate third party. Sure, you can duplicate any number of the features elsewhere. The reason .mac is useful is because it's all in one place. For many users, the idea of having to to Google for their Mail, Flickr for their photos, MediaMax for their storage, and all the while depend on third-party plugins to make it go round... it all just sounds like a headache. Sure, if you know what you're doing it works fine. But $8.25 a month really isn't that much for the simplicity and ease-of-use that .mac offers the average user.
Sure, we'd all love to see .mac get better. And I'm sure in time it will, but let's stop hating on it so much. For the day-to-day user, .mac is a great tool, simple and easy to use, and really isn't all that expensive in the scheme of things. It's two latte's a month... big deal.
tenshin5426
May 1, 06:34 AM
give em hell kid! really fantastic going lets just hope apple are far to busy skirmishing with samsung then picking on young businessmen rofl
WannaGoMac
Apr 5, 05:14 PM
this is on the new macbook? Weird.
This is all they have now
MagSafe power port
Gigabit Ethernet port
Mini DisplayPort
Two USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps)
Audio in/out
Kensington lock slot
This is all they have now
MagSafe power port
Gigabit Ethernet port
Mini DisplayPort
Two USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps)
Audio in/out
Kensington lock slot
bearbo
Oct 10, 08:49 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Xeon#5100-series_.22Woodcrest.22
On 26 June Intel released the Dual-Core Xeon codenamed Woodcrest; it was the first Intel Core microarchitecture processor to be launched on the market. It is a server and workstation version of the Intel Core 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2) processor. Intel claims that it provides an 80% boost in performance, while reducing power consumption by 20% relative to the Pentium D.
sure it mentioned intel core 2, but if you click on that link, and search for xeon, see what you can find.
the both use the Intel Core microarchitecture technology, however they are branded differently
You can also find Xeon information on Intel's Core 2 Duo page...
http://www.intel.com/core2duo/index.htm?iid=HMPAGE+Feature_06ww39
Where is your proof that the Woodcrest Xeon is not built on Core?
on the left side, is the only place that Xeon was listed. There are 5 processors listed there, however on the top where the tabs are, there are only 4, there is no xeon
something they taught in SAT's (i dont know if they still have this these days)
Merom:Woodcrest = C2D:Xeon... they are at the same level, but not one under the other
On 26 June Intel released the Dual-Core Xeon codenamed Woodcrest; it was the first Intel Core microarchitecture processor to be launched on the market. It is a server and workstation version of the Intel Core 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2) processor. Intel claims that it provides an 80% boost in performance, while reducing power consumption by 20% relative to the Pentium D.
sure it mentioned intel core 2, but if you click on that link, and search for xeon, see what you can find.
the both use the Intel Core microarchitecture technology, however they are branded differently
You can also find Xeon information on Intel's Core 2 Duo page...
http://www.intel.com/core2duo/index.htm?iid=HMPAGE+Feature_06ww39
Where is your proof that the Woodcrest Xeon is not built on Core?
on the left side, is the only place that Xeon was listed. There are 5 processors listed there, however on the top where the tabs are, there are only 4, there is no xeon
something they taught in SAT's (i dont know if they still have this these days)
Merom:Woodcrest = C2D:Xeon... they are at the same level, but not one under the other
satcomer
May 6, 10:20 PM
Sonoco in Northern Virginia (on 05/06/11):
Lesser Evets
May 2, 02:59 PM
I think I just yawned.
