illa romza

I'm hoping for a major bombshell of an announcement when it comes to Leopard. I've said it before and I will say it again - the gap between Windows and OS X will narrow with Vista. Yes we are all aware that Vista in all likelihood is going to be just as buggy as 10.0 when it was released. But keep in mind that this will probably be the last version of OS X to be released for the next 18+ months. (When its all said and done its prob going to be close to 2 years with 10.4->10.5) That time frame is more then enough time for MS to release SP1 and SP2 which WILL happen once its released, the general public (a.k.a Beta testers.) get their hands on it, and MS starts getting those crash reports.

Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.

We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.

PS- Please Apple; FTFF.

I hate Radio Shack.

Salesman have their heads up their butts
or corporate does not know what to tell them.

The 4th store I called said if you have a PIN
you are guaranteed a phone.
I understand your frustration, but apple kept us all in the dark until the very last minute. Before 3:30 no body knew anything. It will take it a little while to roll down hill.
I think we all know how secretive apple is don't we?

I just manage a store in the best region in the company. We have a very effective chain of command here in E. Texas.

Choosing icons that have taken on universal meanings and thus are similar, is quite a bit different from direct copying, of which we see none.

The closest ones in that group are probably the phones, and yet if you search for a phone icon on the web, or even on cell phone buttons, probably a quarter of them are slanted. Moreover, green is an extremely common color for the primary phone button, which is why Apple chose it themselves.

The use of rounded square icon backgrounds is a bit more damning, but still a style choice. Also, Apple's has a shadow and my Fascinate doesn't have the rounded square on most anyway.

Btw, I have noticed that Apple hasn't tried to claim ownership of the twirling wait symbol, but a lot of us were using that before they were.

I think Apple might have much better luck showing that the Galaxy phone shape greatly resembles the 3GS.

ooh i was just waiting for that magical term 'generic' that we always hear about after another 'copy' comes along. 'Style choices' is a classic, are you a politician?

"Hey look at how well designed that iPhone is I think I'll make a few 'style choices' and copy every single one of their icons..then have my lawyers deem them all generic".

That would be a good lineup: two Minis, two iMacs, two Macs, two MacPros. Perhaps then the spread from $1499 for a base model conroe Mac to a $3299 or even $3599 for a premo dual-woodcrest 3GHz MacPro would seem plausible? I really like having a Mac desktop option before stepping up to the MacPro (with a smaller format). Right now the iMac is your only option in a certain range.

I agree with another poster too, having both models silent would be most excellent!

This sounds to me like a redux of the Performa/Quadra/LC disaster of the late 90s...I am glad Apple has learned from its mistakes, so it does NOT stretch its production line to a plethora of unnecessary models anymore...

A cheapo MacPro model is more than enough to fill any gaps between the iMac and the Pro line...nothing else.

I need one... or is it more of a want? Need.:eek:

I agree. The Democrats will, of course, push Obama for a second-term and thus our opposition candidates are all GOP, none of whom are serious contenders for improving our present situation.

Obama is far from perfect. But all of the known GOP contenders (Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Paul etc etc) are completely unacceptable.

If I read the Obama administration correctly, the US involvement will be very limited and while "advisors" are certainly on the ground

At this stage I doubt we have any boots on the ground. Communication with the opposition leadership is still patchy but they have made it clear they do not want foreign soldiers in-country. It will be best if the situation can be resolved without further foreign military intervention.

Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
This is true because you say it's true?

It's all waiting on LTE from AT&T... Apple could/would/will have served more justice by releasing an iPhone 5 with no LTE this June, and waiting for the June of 2012 to release an "iPhone 6" with LTE.

There is a possibility that LTE from Verizon is well-suited for an iPhone LTE release in early Feb next year. Verizon may have changed the starting point of Apple's releases for the iPhone(like the Verizon iPhone 4 in Feb '11). I do know that AT&T is behind in its LTE infrastructure... It's all waiting on LTE from AT&T...

The next iPhone may indeed have LTE from both AT&T & Verizon, and presumably be here in the 1st quarter of 2012.

Hope this isn't the case...

Alright, I was originally going to take Apple's side on this, since I could clearly see it looks a lot like iOS, but having looked at Samsung's F700, I don' think Apple has any right to sue..

Although the Samsung F700 has very simple icons, Apple clearly has the same placement of icons, even looking at the bottom you find the four dock like icons..

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9559/samsungf700cellular.jpg

I'd say that Apple copied Samsung :P.. Honestly I'm not one to take sides just because I like Apple Products, I just think its wrong to sue since Samsung clearly had this type of UI first.. Apple has no right to sue..

!!!! DON'T DO THE SMC FIRMWARE UPDATE !!!!

Sorry to post it here, but I think it's urgent.
This update "fixes" tha Macbook fans. After the update, they (the fans) basically run at full speed all the time. They only stop once your CPU is below 50°C.

New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad

Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16

$3950


More like $13,950

:rolleyes:

1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution

See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.

The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.

Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.

Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.

In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.

This is so needed. Hope it is a dramatic improvement.

I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).

Why do you feel the need to hide behind other people's words? Why would you use a book that is 2000 years old to define your morality?

You have made multiple offensive, inflammatory, and downright laughable claims. And the only way you can back them up is by using books, studies, etc..that are so completely biased they can hardly be taken seriously.

I'm sure I would be able to find articles and studies that favor my point of view as well. But why would I need to do that? I don't need written justification to make myself feel better about my beliefs, or the way I choose to live my life.

Venture out into the real world. Read the newspaper...watch TV. Gays and Lesbians are falling in love, getting married, raising children, serving in the military, serving in Congress, teaching in our schools, practicing medicine...Just like heterosexuals. No better and no worse. And the earth continues to revolve around the sun.

But I guess in the end, it's easier to justify hate and ignorance if you have a book like the Bible and organizations like the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY (?) to stand behind.

Of course if the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE DEFENSE OF TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY says it, it must be true. There's no need to listen to those of us in this thread who actually know what we are talking about because we are living it...not because we read an article or a book about it.

What do you mean "if"? (http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids-ui/)

Thank you. I was trying to find that. :)

I have noticed this emphasis as well; not being an expert on this issue myself though, would you care to shed light on how their coverage is an exaggeration and why we shouldn't be worried about it?

I am no expert, and I am not denying that this issue matters. However, I see no cause for concern unless someone provides some decent evidence that it matters. It strikes me as odd that they (at AnandTech) put so much emphasis on explaining the theory behind a "problem" without making any competent effort at illustrating an example of the problem. When you go to configure a Mac Pro, the Apple page says the following about memory: "Mac Pro uses 667MHz DDR2 fully buffered ECC memory, a new industry-standard memory technology that allows for more memory capacity, higher speeds, and better reliability. To take full advantage of the 256-bit wide memory architecture, four or more FB-DIMMs should be installed in Mac Pro." Yet AnandTech chose a 1GB x 2 RAM arrangement to compare the Core 2 Extreme and Xeon processors. Using this setup, which effectively cripples the Mac Pro memory system, they find it to be at worst 10% slower than the Conroe Extreme (in a single non real world usage benchmark). Meanwhile in any comparison that utilizes the four cores, the quad Xeon whoops ass by a large margin.

My guess is that it won't happen until 07

I have my money on 06. Tiger was an especially API-heavy release. It introduced Spotlight, Dashboard, and Automator, which all depend on developers to extend them. In addition, it introduced other technologies of interest to developers, such as Core Image and Core Video.

If we look at the Leopard rumors, we can see the following features being feasible:

*Unified Interface
*Windows Virtualization
*New Finder
*BitTorrent
*iChat with Phone Calling
*Maps application
*Random Application Updates
*Improved Speech capabilities
*Collaboration API ("Core Collaboration?")

Now lets narrow that down to features of interest to developers:

*Unified Interface
*BitTorrent
*Collaboration API

Not such big changes. Unless there are some wild cards in there (and I hope there will be!) that are developer-centric, this is a pretty easy release for developers to swallow. This will be a consumer-centric release.

Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.


Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:

Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.

But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!

I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html


Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:


Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.

6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

I thought an interesting part was more UB apps next week..

Office?
CS2 ?

Couldn't Samsung just claim that the Galaxy S line is an evolution of the Samsung F700? Pretty strong argument for samsung.

To me the answer to the whole IR/Mac Pro/Front Row thing is obvious - put an integrated IR receiver into the keyboard. The keyboard would come with the Mac Pro (unlike the display) and is rarely under the desk. :)

Plus they could sell the keyboard for any Mac (including ones that don't have Front Row - they could include the app with it).

Don't like it. I don't want a new keyboard - I just want FR. Besides, anyone with an older laptop would not be served by that. Just put a USB dongle in the case and sell it with the software!

Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.

This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.

Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.

Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.

A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.

I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.

In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.

This story is ridiculous as written.

Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.

I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.

MacPro8?

The Mactopus??

Orgy-core.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



But in the case of the Sb quad core the figure seems to be in excess of 50%, not 20%

CPU isnt the only component drawing power. AMD 6750M has higher TDP compared to 330M as well