vwsoul
Sep 16, 04:12 PM
I am curious tho, if people placed their orders now and lets say the new mbp comes out on the 19th, then how will they adjust the specs and price for the one you ordered and the one that ships? Will they contact you ahead of time or just send you a similar spec based on your price?
Any ideas? :o
Any ideas? :o
Truffy
Jan 12, 09:45 AM
There is no reason to put anti-virus software on your Mac!
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
This is quite ignorant on a number of levels:
1. Trojans do exist for OSX, although unless you're logged in as admin (and who routinely operates their Mac like that? :rolleyes:) the request to install should alert you to something wrong.
2. Security through obscurity is no security at all, especially as OSX and iOS become more mainstream.
3. If you send files to friends, relations, or business colleagues with a less fortunate computing experience it would be playing nice not to pass on nasties to them.
Even Apple seems to think so, or is ClamXav no longer installed by default on OSX (server)?
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
This is quite ignorant on a number of levels:
1. Trojans do exist for OSX, although unless you're logged in as admin (and who routinely operates their Mac like that? :rolleyes:) the request to install should alert you to something wrong.
2. Security through obscurity is no security at all, especially as OSX and iOS become more mainstream.
3. If you send files to friends, relations, or business colleagues with a less fortunate computing experience it would be playing nice not to pass on nasties to them.
Even Apple seems to think so, or is ClamXav no longer installed by default on OSX (server)?
lilo777
Apr 18, 03:07 PM
That took awhile.
Samsung, that's what you get from trying to kill the golden egg goose. Hopefully apple follows through by moving to TSMC.
I did not know that TSMC produces LCD panels, RAM, SSD drives or flash memory. If Samsung stops supplying those to Apple, Apple is dead.
Samsung, that's what you get from trying to kill the golden egg goose. Hopefully apple follows through by moving to TSMC.
I did not know that TSMC produces LCD panels, RAM, SSD drives or flash memory. If Samsung stops supplying those to Apple, Apple is dead.
Scottsdale
May 6, 01:02 AM
I welcome this idea. Intel is a disgusting anti-competitive company that cannot play fair. Apple is forced to use Intel's chipset and IGP instead of Nvidia which may have lead Apple to a decision like this. ARM is the future as is iOS, so like it or lump it. The low end Macs would probably have ARM and others both ARM and Intel. I would also welcome a switch to AMD.
dgree03
Mar 29, 09:13 AM
There are several streaming and file store apps in app store...
how many of those apps sell music and movies for use on portable devices?
So why is the website blocking access?
That being said, I hope Apple's preview of the future of iOS gets done with all the restrictions after all. Fighting with companies who want to build on your platform is not gonna lead them anywhere.
I didnt realize the webpage was blocking access...
how many of those apps sell music and movies for use on portable devices?
So why is the website blocking access?
That being said, I hope Apple's preview of the future of iOS gets done with all the restrictions after all. Fighting with companies who want to build on your platform is not gonna lead them anywhere.
I didnt realize the webpage was blocking access...
-aggie-
May 4, 10:39 AM
The other downside is we have half our health and action points. I'm not sure how big of a trap we can see early in a game, but if it has 3 or more that wipes out a whole team possibly.
geese
Nov 23, 11:19 AM
I already own Apple and cannot see Rim's advancing any more than a few points on the news.
You own Apple do you? My! You've kept a very low profile!
You own Apple do you? My! You've kept a very low profile!
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 12:17 PM
good point, I suppose it would increase taxes on the poor. and of course I see no benefit to that.
Surely finding a way to exempt the poor from that would be less complicated the current system.
Also, perhaps the necessary % would be less than expected bc normal people wouldn't be able to skate around taxation.
I'm not saying that this should be a primary political focus, but I believe it would be a nice thing to consider once government spending and overreach is under control and the national debt is less scary
I have no issues with a VAT as long as it is not imposed on food, energy and shelter. Unfortunately, it no longer becomes a great revenue generator if you exempt it from what the majority spend most of their money on.
Surely finding a way to exempt the poor from that would be less complicated the current system.
Also, perhaps the necessary % would be less than expected bc normal people wouldn't be able to skate around taxation.
I'm not saying that this should be a primary political focus, but I believe it would be a nice thing to consider once government spending and overreach is under control and the national debt is less scary
I have no issues with a VAT as long as it is not imposed on food, energy and shelter. Unfortunately, it no longer becomes a great revenue generator if you exempt it from what the majority spend most of their money on.
NoNothing
Apr 6, 05:15 PM
No matter what Apple does lately or how much they sell or how good the forecasts are for sales Apple Stock continues it quick downward slide. What the HELL!! I just do not understand it ... Specially while Google stock continues to climb at an incredible pace week, after week, after week.. :confused::confused::mad:
Are you looking at the same AAPL and GOOG I have been? Really? Are you sure?
You might be in Bazaro Universe? Look at the 1 week, 2 week, 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, 1 year and 2 year trends. AAPL is looking pretty sweet.
Are you looking at the same AAPL and GOOG I have been? Really? Are you sure?
You might be in Bazaro Universe? Look at the 1 week, 2 week, 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, 1 year and 2 year trends. AAPL is looking pretty sweet.
Jason Beck
May 6, 07:03 AM
AMD is currently a bang for buck chip maker, I doubt you'll see them CPUs in Apple products. Plus until Fusion develops some more the thermal envelope isn't too good.
Yep. That's the truth :(
Yep. That's the truth :(
firestarter
Apr 21, 02:34 PM
Good!
It would be great if there was an even smaller one, now that Thunderbolt allows high speed expansion outside the box.
It would be great if there was an even smaller one, now that Thunderbolt allows high speed expansion outside the box.
Gasu E.
Apr 25, 08:25 AM
I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ? Well whatever that GPU is , apple will ship with the one released 2 years ago and half the RAM it shipped with on the PC .
<...>
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
:) I think you are just seeing advance preparation for something that won't happen for a while; moreover, when it does happen, it will start with smaller screens and work its way up to the larger ones over time. By the time it works up to a 20"+ displays, GPUs will be much more powerful.
<...>
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
:) I think you are just seeing advance preparation for something that won't happen for a while; moreover, when it does happen, it will start with smaller screens and work its way up to the larger ones over time. By the time it works up to a 20"+ displays, GPUs will be much more powerful.
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:04 PM
Because it has a payment system and delivery system in place.
But it isn't an app. It's an OS upgrade.
So why sell it in the App Store?
Apple isn't a poor company, the Apple Store (the website) has been able to sell digital software for years. They could set up a very sophisticated method for selling Mac OS X to people without using the App Store.
If I was Apple, I'd sell (through their website) a licence for Mac OS X. You'd download a small App, which would give you the option to either install it to the computer you were on right then or to create a DVD or USB key which could also be used to install the OS. This App would then download the appropriate files and continue the install/make the DVD.
But it isn't an app. It's an OS upgrade.
So why sell it in the App Store?
Apple isn't a poor company, the Apple Store (the website) has been able to sell digital software for years. They could set up a very sophisticated method for selling Mac OS X to people without using the App Store.
If I was Apple, I'd sell (through their website) a licence for Mac OS X. You'd download a small App, which would give you the option to either install it to the computer you were on right then or to create a DVD or USB key which could also be used to install the OS. This App would then download the appropriate files and continue the install/make the DVD.
milo
Jul 21, 03:26 PM
This may be a dumb question, but why would apple just use the new chips in mbp's and not the mb? Dosn't seem to make sense. As soon as core 2 merom comes out every pc notebook will have it. Price wouldn't be an issue cause merom is same price as yonah, correct?
Because yonah will be cheaper. Yonah prices will drop again when merom ships.
And "every PC notebook" will most certainly NOT have merom. Cheaper PC laptops will still have yonah.
To date we have not seen Apple update any of their Intel products. So it may not be any different. The pressure will be on Apple with new processors coming out all of the time. Steve Jobs keps Apple from doing what you would exspect much of the time.
They speed bumped the MBP before it shipped, didn't they also do a minor update when the 17 shipped?
With the more frequent processor changes/speed upgrades that goes along with switching to Intel, what is Apple going to do with all the "left overs" of old versions of products?
They can sell them at a discount. But there won't be many of these in most cases, since for example the MBP doesn't need any additional changes along with swapping in a merom chip. The imac and mini could take merom just by swapping a chip in a socket (so the user could even do it).
Because yonah will be cheaper. Yonah prices will drop again when merom ships.
And "every PC notebook" will most certainly NOT have merom. Cheaper PC laptops will still have yonah.
To date we have not seen Apple update any of their Intel products. So it may not be any different. The pressure will be on Apple with new processors coming out all of the time. Steve Jobs keps Apple from doing what you would exspect much of the time.
They speed bumped the MBP before it shipped, didn't they also do a minor update when the 17 shipped?
With the more frequent processor changes/speed upgrades that goes along with switching to Intel, what is Apple going to do with all the "left overs" of old versions of products?
They can sell them at a discount. But there won't be many of these in most cases, since for example the MBP doesn't need any additional changes along with swapping in a merom chip. The imac and mini could take merom just by swapping a chip in a socket (so the user could even do it).
McGiord
May 2, 08:25 PM
The main reason that it will never happen -> they never will charge the gas by the liter, they want to keep it by the gallon...and continue increasing the price, if they change to the liters...a lot of people will be confused and start to complaint and blame the price increases on the metric system...wait they may want to use it as a smoke flare....hum,....:confused:
BuffyzDead
Apr 18, 02:53 PM
Only in Business where two companies that are active partners, as Samsung is a major Vendor to Apple, can they this happen.
Of Course Apple is right to sue.
I always imagined that when Apple sends over all the blueprints, for the technologies/products that Apple asks Samsung to build, those Blueprints go right to Samsung R&D. To copy and learn from.
Of Course Apple is right to sue.
I always imagined that when Apple sends over all the blueprints, for the technologies/products that Apple asks Samsung to build, those Blueprints go right to Samsung R&D. To copy and learn from.
kalsta
May 6, 10:04 AM
Exactly what I was thinking. Although glass sizes differ across states in Australia as well. Here in WA if i go for a pub I'll either ask for a pint (a big glass) or a middi, handle, pot etc (small glass) or a schooner (tall glass slightly smaller then a pint) although never have asked for a schooner and see no need.
I've been to WA a couple of times… Had fish and chips with friends on the docks at Freo… all very nice! But I nearly fell over when they handed me the beers and told me the price. Don't ask me if it came in a pint or a schooner though. All I remember was it was expensive and I didn't even enjoy it. It was Redback I think — made with wheat, and not my cup of tea.
What were we talking about again?
I've been to WA a couple of times… Had fish and chips with friends on the docks at Freo… all very nice! But I nearly fell over when they handed me the beers and told me the price. Don't ask me if it came in a pint or a schooner though. All I remember was it was expensive and I didn't even enjoy it. It was Redback I think — made with wheat, and not my cup of tea.
What were we talking about again?
iJawn108
Jul 21, 06:10 PM
I'm excited but... :( I kind of want to wait for the 800 Mhz FSB that will most likely come out next year. if it comes with a new case with the macbook styled keyboard ill snatch it up. :p
webman2k
Apr 7, 10:34 AM
All your screens are belong to us.
zimtheinvader
Sep 15, 10:01 PM
I think no new enclosure, they would have done that when they went Intel! I also second the antiMB keyboard sentiment. The powerbook keyboard is nearly perfect, & one of the the major selling points for MBP over MB for journalists, scientists, intensive-keyboardists, ect, only minor improvements could me made unless there is some new technology integrated...
mcarnes
Jul 21, 02:01 PM
Sheesh. This is a 180 from waiting for G5 updates.
generik
Sep 16, 05:21 AM
There is no way the MBP's will recieve resolution upgrades before Leopard. Santa Rosa MBP's will definiantly be bumped to 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. Tiger is resolution dependent, which means that a higher DPI would make it nearly impossible to see anything.
It might be as soon as MWSF... remember how Apple released a half arsed PB update last October before unleashing the BOMB 3 months later?
All those who bought that last PB probably felt cheated, thank God I sold mine off in time :rolleyes:
It might be as soon as MWSF... remember how Apple released a half arsed PB update last October before unleashing the BOMB 3 months later?
All those who bought that last PB probably felt cheated, thank God I sold mine off in time :rolleyes:
wangagat
Jul 21, 03:24 PM
something to remember about product update cycles:
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.