snebes
Mar 30, 05:57 PM
Thanks Captain Obvious... I think that is what Apple said at the very beginning ;)
great minds think a like :P
Apple said it would be released in the Summer, but the GM usually comes 3-4 weeks before hand. I know it is splitting hairs with this, as I was referring to the GM.
However, considering that it could be released via App Store first, there could be a much shorter delay from GM to its release date now.
great minds think a like :P
Apple said it would be released in the Summer, but the GM usually comes 3-4 weeks before hand. I know it is splitting hairs with this, as I was referring to the GM.
However, considering that it could be released via App Store first, there could be a much shorter delay from GM to its release date now.
milo
Aug 11, 11:22 AM
Well, hopefully the iMac will be updated sooner than the portables. Conroe is out and available in quantities now where as Merom won't be as available in quantities until the end of this month.
But the portables can be upgraded with no change to the motherboard. Conroe is a different socket, so it needs a redesign. I hope they take iMac to conroe, but it's possible they could do a merom update instead, at least as a temporary measure.
This is probably because merom is aimed at mainly at laptops, however there's no reason by they shouldn't put it in an iMac.
There are reasons. Biggest one is merom is more expensive than conroe. You'd be wasting money on power saving features that aren't needed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that Yonah and Merom were being priced identically (at same clock speed) by Intel.
I doubt that will last. I assume Yonah prices will drop once merom ships.
Quad Xeons in the MacBook Pro, pretty please. After all, it is Apple's professional notebook line.
You're kidding, right? The xeon isn't a portable chip, the heat and power usage would make that impossible. Why don't you ask for three open PCI slots in your laptop while you're at it? And a pony?
NO!!!! I'm broke and have the midrange MB. I just cannot stand them releasing the much faster processor (IE: not just mhz increase) in my computer this soon!
It's not that much faster, probably about 20% at the same clock speed. That's nice, but not much different from a mhz boost.
I look at it this way, the iMac, MacMini, Macbook, and Macbook pro can use Merom as is. No changes except firmware. In the iMac's case, why mess with a good thing and spend millions on another reengineering job when you already have a machine that is fast and dead quiet right now? Conroe in an iMac only makes sense it you think of it as a prosumer Mac instead of a family machine. Then again the idea of the iMac as a prosumer machine doesn�t make sense to me at all.
Actually, you don't even need a firmware change, people have already done the swap and it works fine. Conroe does make sense in an iMac just because it's cheaper. And future chips will use the Conroe socket so they're going to need to update the design eventually anyway.
But the portables can be upgraded with no change to the motherboard. Conroe is a different socket, so it needs a redesign. I hope they take iMac to conroe, but it's possible they could do a merom update instead, at least as a temporary measure.
This is probably because merom is aimed at mainly at laptops, however there's no reason by they shouldn't put it in an iMac.
There are reasons. Biggest one is merom is more expensive than conroe. You'd be wasting money on power saving features that aren't needed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that Yonah and Merom were being priced identically (at same clock speed) by Intel.
I doubt that will last. I assume Yonah prices will drop once merom ships.
Quad Xeons in the MacBook Pro, pretty please. After all, it is Apple's professional notebook line.
You're kidding, right? The xeon isn't a portable chip, the heat and power usage would make that impossible. Why don't you ask for three open PCI slots in your laptop while you're at it? And a pony?
NO!!!! I'm broke and have the midrange MB. I just cannot stand them releasing the much faster processor (IE: not just mhz increase) in my computer this soon!
It's not that much faster, probably about 20% at the same clock speed. That's nice, but not much different from a mhz boost.
I look at it this way, the iMac, MacMini, Macbook, and Macbook pro can use Merom as is. No changes except firmware. In the iMac's case, why mess with a good thing and spend millions on another reengineering job when you already have a machine that is fast and dead quiet right now? Conroe in an iMac only makes sense it you think of it as a prosumer Mac instead of a family machine. Then again the idea of the iMac as a prosumer machine doesn�t make sense to me at all.
Actually, you don't even need a firmware change, people have already done the swap and it works fine. Conroe does make sense in an iMac just because it's cheaper. And future chips will use the Conroe socket so they're going to need to update the design eventually anyway.
Apple OC
Apr 20, 12:22 AM
this seems very likely .... looking forward
MorphingDragon
May 6, 01:09 AM
Do you also believe MS wanted IE6 to stick around for 10 years? :rolleyes:
If you ask a web designer, yes.
Oh Charlie, you so silly.
I see what you did thar
If you ask a web designer, yes.
Oh Charlie, you so silly.
I see what you did thar
milozauckerman
Aug 7, 09:59 PM
Not everyone is going to use a powerful card for gaming, and I wouldn't want to pay more than I need for my uses.
Uh, that's the point: you shouldn't have to 'pay more' - it should be standard, and shouldn't raise the price-point, if other manufacturers can do it.
I don't get the apologists who defend every questionable component from Apple by saying 'well, I don't want to pay extra in the base price' (for a reasonable amount of RAM or for a decent videocard) - demand more from Apple.
Ask why you can't have a $2500 flagship desktop with a graphics card that didn't cost Apple $40, why Apple can't eat the extra $45 to offer their consumer items with a usable amount of RAM standard.
Uh, that's the point: you shouldn't have to 'pay more' - it should be standard, and shouldn't raise the price-point, if other manufacturers can do it.
I don't get the apologists who defend every questionable component from Apple by saying 'well, I don't want to pay extra in the base price' (for a reasonable amount of RAM or for a decent videocard) - demand more from Apple.
Ask why you can't have a $2500 flagship desktop with a graphics card that didn't cost Apple $40, why Apple can't eat the extra $45 to offer their consumer items with a usable amount of RAM standard.
Manic Mouse
Sep 16, 11:55 AM
Exactly...a 12 incher with Core 2 Duo, backlit keyboard and a reasonable GPU is all I need...nothing really fancy.
That would be nice, but it seems unlikely. Apple seem to consider the black MacBook the small "professional" laptop. Maybe it'll get a descrete GPU though, that would be pretty good, no?
That would be nice, but it seems unlikely. Apple seem to consider the black MacBook the small "professional" laptop. Maybe it'll get a descrete GPU though, that would be pretty good, no?
MacsomJRR
Nov 27, 01:02 AM
I'd buy a mac tablet in a heartbeat.
Popeye206
Apr 7, 11:41 AM
They only need like ~100,000.
Hummm... maybe Motorola has some spare Xoom screens they could share with RIM? Oh... the size thing.... Hummm...
The Tab! There should be about 1 million+ channel returns coming back on the TAB 1.0... Samsung may have some stock that RIM could work with? A little glue and tape and there you go! :p
Hummm... maybe Motorola has some spare Xoom screens they could share with RIM? Oh... the size thing.... Hummm...
The Tab! There should be about 1 million+ channel returns coming back on the TAB 1.0... Samsung may have some stock that RIM could work with? A little glue and tape and there you go! :p
SwiftLives
Mar 28, 10:01 AM
At face value, it would make more sense for Apple to announce the new iPhone in the fall along with the iPods. The iPod Touch and the iPhone are both iOS devices. And keep in mind there's all sorts of chatter about either a third generation iPad or an additional iPad model. So why not roll them all into one announcement in September?
Of course, by keeping the announcements separate, Apple extends their publicity.
I still expect an iPhone 5 announcement to be made at WWDC. Going longer than a year between updates gives competitors an advantage. And frankly, smartphone competitors are catching up.
Of course, by keeping the announcements separate, Apple extends their publicity.
I still expect an iPhone 5 announcement to be made at WWDC. Going longer than a year between updates gives competitors an advantage. And frankly, smartphone competitors are catching up.
nuckinfutz
May 7, 03:31 PM
Yes, you're right. Novelty, not nostalgia. My brain is a little fried afta writin my dissertation.
How is it a novelty?
MobileMe doesn't even work right now... how would they ever support way more users?
Works fine here.
How is it a novelty?
MobileMe doesn't even work right now... how would they ever support way more users?
Works fine here.
bwillwall
Apr 24, 08:12 AM
That really is such a bad idea :(
Can you imagine the terrible usability in having a screen tilted on it's back and having to lift our arms up to do finger painting.
Who wants to cover their display with their hands?
lol both of you guys, its called the iPad... by the way Apple made it very clear that touchscreen laptops dont work well.
Can you imagine the terrible usability in having a screen tilted on it's back and having to lift our arms up to do finger painting.
Who wants to cover their display with their hands?
lol both of you guys, its called the iPad... by the way Apple made it very clear that touchscreen laptops dont work well.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
Val-kyrie
Jul 22, 08:12 PM
Maybe I'm out in right field with this suggestion, but how about a further separation between the black Macbook and the white, other than color?
Macbooks (white) - Yonah and integrated graphics (960?)
Macbook (black) - Merom and the new integrated graphics (965???)
That would certainly justify the black's higher cost and would give it more of a punch to be that PB 12" replacement.
Or preferably a MB with a discrete gfx option.
Macbooks (white) - Yonah and integrated graphics (960?)
Macbook (black) - Merom and the new integrated graphics (965???)
That would certainly justify the black's higher cost and would give it more of a punch to be that PB 12" replacement.
Or preferably a MB with a discrete gfx option.
nuckinfutz
May 7, 11:54 AM
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements." If you mean that we should get free Cloud services without ads then I think you're completely wrong and I'm most worried about sites that provide free services and have absolutely nothing but VC cash to pay for it. And if you mean we should have the option of paying for Cloud services to avoid ads, then fine, but you can do that with Gmail, so I don't see why you think MobileMe is any better than Gmail (from the privacy perspective).
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.�
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.�
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
Zendokan
Apr 20, 10:23 AM
Here in Belgium a combination pack of iPhone and a subscription is still illegal, so all the iPhones are around the same price, namely 749� (yes, euros) for the top model (sucks, doesn't it).
So when the iPhone5 comes out, the iPhone4 will become 100� cheaper, that's too small a difference to let the iPhone5 pas by. Unfortunally because the price is so high and we can choose our own telephone subscriptions I buy them in 2-year cycles.
For me the iPhone5 can be an upgrade of the iPhone4 with the same design. Just change the backside from glass to metal.
I'm looking out for September.
So when the iPhone5 comes out, the iPhone4 will become 100� cheaper, that's too small a difference to let the iPhone5 pas by. Unfortunally because the price is so high and we can choose our own telephone subscriptions I buy them in 2-year cycles.
For me the iPhone5 can be an upgrade of the iPhone4 with the same design. Just change the backside from glass to metal.
I'm looking out for September.
Phobophobia
Nov 23, 09:47 AM
My future wife's (who I don't know yet) cat said
Did the cat also happen to take any photos of unreleased products in elevators?
Did the cat also happen to take any photos of unreleased products in elevators?
greenstork
Aug 4, 01:03 AM
I just hope Apple doesn't wait until Paris Expo to announce it. Then we're talking 2+ months.
I'm sure HP, Dell, Apple and the rest of the computer makers out there will have Merom laptops available as soon as they receive the chips from Intel.
I'm sure HP, Dell, Apple and the rest of the computer makers out there will have Merom laptops available as soon as they receive the chips from Intel.
Raidersmojo
Jul 30, 05:48 AM
one problem, that will never happen. Alltel does not own their network or even remotly have any form of cash to set it up. they just rent their network. Second, you can offer as much as of a cool device as you want, but its not going to cause millions of people to just dump their plans, break their contracts and switch. Mac cool-aid, down, now!
going to have to say you're wrong on that one
my dad has said if apple comes out with a cell phone hes canceling all of our cell phone plans and getting apples. he has a verizon treo my step mom brother and sister have nextel phones
going to have to say you're wrong on that one
my dad has said if apple comes out with a cell phone hes canceling all of our cell phone plans and getting apples. he has a verizon treo my step mom brother and sister have nextel phones
bigraz
Jul 30, 09:38 PM
The apple phone should be similar to the Sony P900 series, in that they are unlocked and work with any GSM phone. I don't think any store, Cingular, T-Mobile, etc. do not sell through the stores. You have to buy from Sony or elsewhere.
I had a P900 phone before the Treo 650 and it worked fine with Cingular.
Bring on a phone that can sync with ease and feel of Apple OS, so I don't have to rely on Palm, not that is that bad.
Apple for life!:D
I had a P900 phone before the Treo 650 and it worked fine with Cingular.
Bring on a phone that can sync with ease and feel of Apple OS, so I don't have to rely on Palm, not that is that bad.
Apple for life!:D
MacSA
Jul 22, 06:22 PM
I'm with Multimedia i don't see why Apple would intentionally cripple the Macbook with yonah when they coast exactly the same and are just a drop in upgrade.
But this is Apple we're talking about lol
But this is Apple we're talking about lol
Jett0516
Apr 26, 04:49 PM
you guys are still in denial.
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
macnerd93
Apr 26, 02:14 PM
I thought Android was a terrible OS, but I am still extremely impressed that iOS is where it is. Considering a lot of manufactures are using Android now, this is still pretty impressive iOS is able to be the second from the top on three devices iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, although the report does state mobile phone usage so it might just include the iPhone and not the other two i mentioned
citizenzen
Apr 18, 09:20 PM
You clause is a great idea, but we all know that taxes never go away.
You might need to question that notion, considering that Americans today are taxed at the lowest level in over 50 years.
From the Orange County Register, April 17, 2011 ...
Taxes reach historic low (http://www.ocregister.com/news/-117079-ocprint--.html)
For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center. All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s, according to the Tax Foundation. The highest income-tax bracket is its lowest since 1992. At 35 percent, it's well below the 50 percent mark of much of the 1980s and the 70 percent bracket of the 1970s.
So let me recommend something. It's basically a reversal of your clause. The clause would allow a taxation adjustment (which would be predetermined) once 20% of spending has been cut (or some other amount).
I could go for something along those lines too.
You might need to question that notion, considering that Americans today are taxed at the lowest level in over 50 years.
From the Orange County Register, April 17, 2011 ...
Taxes reach historic low (http://www.ocregister.com/news/-117079-ocprint--.html)
For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center. All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s, according to the Tax Foundation. The highest income-tax bracket is its lowest since 1992. At 35 percent, it's well below the 50 percent mark of much of the 1980s and the 70 percent bracket of the 1970s.
So let me recommend something. It's basically a reversal of your clause. The clause would allow a taxation adjustment (which would be predetermined) once 20% of spending has been cut (or some other amount).
I could go for something along those lines too.
thogs_cave
Aug 11, 04:05 PM
I would be happy with the *real* replacement for the 12" Powerbook. Can't work with that gloss screen, and can't bear the integrated graphics. Apple need to get real if they want professionals like photographers to buy a new laptop. :confused:
Huh? I'll give that the glossy screen is a matter of taste (I thought I'd hate it, I ended up loving it), but:
1) The integrated gfx are totally fine for photo work. It's all 2D, and the 2D speeds are very good. It falls over only on heavy gaming. There is nothing wrong with integrated graphics for the majority of "professional" users.
2) The MacBook is a "consumer" model. The Pro is for the "Professional", although I'm some sort of a "professional", and my MacBook suits me just fine. (I liked the form factor and the keyboard.) Stuffed with 2G of RAM and a 100G 7.2K drive it runs OS X, Windows & CentOS (via Parallels desktop) just fine. It's like a digital Swiss Army knife - I haven't found much it can't do reasonably well. :o
Huh? I'll give that the glossy screen is a matter of taste (I thought I'd hate it, I ended up loving it), but:
1) The integrated gfx are totally fine for photo work. It's all 2D, and the 2D speeds are very good. It falls over only on heavy gaming. There is nothing wrong with integrated graphics for the majority of "professional" users.
2) The MacBook is a "consumer" model. The Pro is for the "Professional", although I'm some sort of a "professional", and my MacBook suits me just fine. (I liked the form factor and the keyboard.) Stuffed with 2G of RAM and a 100G 7.2K drive it runs OS X, Windows & CentOS (via Parallels desktop) just fine. It's like a digital Swiss Army knife - I haven't found much it can't do reasonably well. :o