ucfgrad93
Apr 25, 12:14 AM
Good luck with reporting my plates. I've done that to drunk drivers before, the 911 operator has told me "We're sorry sir, we cannot divert officers based on heresy." Also, see above: My uncle is the traffic court judge in the jurisdiction where I did this, good luck getting a ticket to stand.
EDIT: @mrsirs2009 - No I actually just felt like going fast.
-Don
And the sense of entitlement just keeps getting larger. Hope your uncle can protect you when you kill someone.
EDIT: @mrsirs2009 - No I actually just felt like going fast.
-Don
And the sense of entitlement just keeps getting larger. Hope your uncle can protect you when you kill someone.
TangoCharlie
Sep 14, 03:15 AM
Finally is this it?
No. ;)
No. ;)
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 08:22 PM
ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
There are GSM carriers here that do that, too, you know. It's not all CDMA here.
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
There are GSM carriers here that do that, too, you know. It's not all CDMA here.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 03:22 AM
Nokia will according to a swedish site (http://mobil.mkf.se/ArticlePages/200609/18/20060918085929_MOB699/20060918085929_MOB699.dbp.asp) will release their first true GPS cellphone (integrated GPS reciever) within two weeks.
If Apple want to enter the cellphone market they better get going...
If Apple want to enter the cellphone market they better get going...
roland.g
Mar 22, 03:09 PM
I am going to be in the market to replace my 24" 2.8 rev. A aluminum iMac (Aug 2007) when these come out with a new 27". I will be consolidating to an iMac and iPad 2 since I no longer feel the need for a 13" MacBook Pro as well.
Sell the MacBook Pro and iMac to fund the new iMac or close to it. However, I will wait until later in the summer and get a 10.7 Lion pre-loaded machine. No sense in buying that close to a major OS update.
Sell the MacBook Pro and iMac to fund the new iMac or close to it. However, I will wait until later in the summer and get a 10.7 Lion pre-loaded machine. No sense in buying that close to a major OS update.
AppleDroid
Apr 14, 12:34 PM
I think my next computer will be an Ivy Bridge MBA with Thunderbolt. My 2007 Macbook is getting a bit long in tooth.
Sounds like me as well! My 2009 15in MBP is still doing fine but I would love an ultra-portable that has the option for a fast external solution.
Sounds like me as well! My 2009 15in MBP is still doing fine but I would love an ultra-portable that has the option for a fast external solution.
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 10:45 AM
as much as others "stole" from apple I bet apple "stole" just as much from other companies. funny how macrumors failed to mention that samsung may be counter suing because apple might have used some samsung tech without asking as well.
oh well life goes on. None of theses multi BILLION dollar companies have any soul, they are just cold, calculating, heartless businesses. And for all the apple fanatics here, yes that INCLUDES apple. :o
oh well life goes on. None of theses multi BILLION dollar companies have any soul, they are just cold, calculating, heartless businesses. And for all the apple fanatics here, yes that INCLUDES apple. :o
xUKHCx
Sep 10, 04:34 PM
I have the oringal iMac G5 bought on the very day they were announced. (well i dont have it as it is in for another replacement midplane - total worth of applecare to me so far is about the £1400 mark). It is feeling rather old and very slow for my tasks. I am now wishing i had that display so i could connect it to the mini or a mid range tower. I long for upgradable graphics as a not so proud owner of the geforce 5200 or whatever it is in my mac so such a pitiful perfonace it is not listed as Aperture capable. It really is a shocking video card. I have upgraded the harddrive that was a snap in the iMac, i have even replaced the logic board 30 mins no fuss. THings i liked about the original iMac ease of replacement parts. Things i didnt like: the non upgradable parts - processor and graphics.
I truely long for the Mid range tower.
double height Pci graphics slot ala Mac Pro with the X1900.
Space for two harddrives for Time Machine mostly.
Pretty beefy processor, preferably with some sort of upgrade path
Option to purchase a bundle display 17" really cheap option.
1 gb ram - 8 gb provided by 4 ram slots
Cost: £700
Cost: £850 with the 17 inch mointor
Cost: £1000 with the 20 inch mointor
I truely long for the Mid range tower.
double height Pci graphics slot ala Mac Pro with the X1900.
Space for two harddrives for Time Machine mostly.
Pretty beefy processor, preferably with some sort of upgrade path
Option to purchase a bundle display 17" really cheap option.
1 gb ram - 8 gb provided by 4 ram slots
Cost: £700
Cost: £850 with the 17 inch mointor
Cost: £1000 with the 20 inch mointor
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 01:50 AM
The logo on the center of the record, not the album artwork.
The logo on the center of the record is an apple sliced in half. Again, it looks nothing like Apple's logo.
The logo on the center of the record is an apple sliced in half. Again, it looks nothing like Apple's logo.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 20, 09:10 AM
You're right. Apple doesn't use an Apple for their logo. :rolleyes:
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
dukebound85
Apr 25, 12:22 AM
You know what I hate more? effing speeders:rolleyes:
Scratch that....effing speeders who don't even have a years worth of driving under their belt and think it's safe to go 20 over
Man I wish the driving age was upped to at least 18
It's people like you who piss me off when I am riding my motorcycle as you guys are so effing unpredictable it is dangerous for everyone around you. Never mind my bike can easily outgun pretty much any car out there trying to go fast...
and you say you want to blow up cars obeying the law...unbelievable
/rant
Scratch that....effing speeders who don't even have a years worth of driving under their belt and think it's safe to go 20 over
Man I wish the driving age was upped to at least 18
It's people like you who piss me off when I am riding my motorcycle as you guys are so effing unpredictable it is dangerous for everyone around you. Never mind my bike can easily outgun pretty much any car out there trying to go fast...
and you say you want to blow up cars obeying the law...unbelievable
/rant
rjohnstone
Apr 28, 03:27 PM
That much money selling expensive toys. :eek:
InuNacho
Apr 30, 06:56 PM
There is a difference between a revision and a dramatic change. They have not really touch the computer bolted to the back of an LCD screen for a long long time. I loved the look of the Luxo iMac, the BondiBlue would be my second. The slim iMac seems cold and heartless, lack of emotion.
I feel the same way about the new iMacs, their cold dark metal instead of the old warm happy white or bright colors.
I feel the same way about the new iMacs, their cold dark metal instead of the old warm happy white or bright colors.
4God
Aug 28, 12:12 PM
I think I'll just purchase a Core 2 Duo myself and drop it in my iMac.
Conroe, right?
Conroe, right?
williedigital
Sep 13, 10:52 PM
Two things
1) it seems like people are overexagerating with the "having to slide the clickwheel up to call anyone" thing. Everyone I know uses a contact list almost exclusively, something which could very easily be incorporated into the standard ipod interface (already is sort of). Calling the odd number i'd be fine with sliding it up. Perhaps they could introduce some really innovative contact list stuff software wise to make it even less necessary to "dial" people.
2) Maybe all the touchscreen stuff we think is for the video ipod is really for the phone and the dialpad and clickwheel both use a touch sensitive thing to work.
1) it seems like people are overexagerating with the "having to slide the clickwheel up to call anyone" thing. Everyone I know uses a contact list almost exclusively, something which could very easily be incorporated into the standard ipod interface (already is sort of). Calling the odd number i'd be fine with sliding it up. Perhaps they could introduce some really innovative contact list stuff software wise to make it even less necessary to "dial" people.
2) Maybe all the touchscreen stuff we think is for the video ipod is really for the phone and the dialpad and clickwheel both use a touch sensitive thing to work.
0815
Apr 20, 01:50 PM
Enough with the chicken little episodes already.
Apparently, this is related to AT&T only and it is not based on GPS location services but rather a database of cell towers. It contains no identifiable information and is sent to AT&T for analysis for signal strength statistics.
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
If you think that this is a privacy concern then you need to have your head examined. It is anonymous statistical information and nothing more.
*edit*
It is possible that this information was being collected for an AT&T app that you could download a while back and the OS is still collecting it in the background regardless of whether you have the app installed. Am I crazy or is there an AT&T app that consumes this data on the app store?
Would you mind telling us the source of this knowledge? While I have read that this happens only on GSM devices, I know from my device that it had data from all over the world. But most interesting would be where you found the information that that files gets shared with AT&T.
Apparently, this is related to AT&T only and it is not based on GPS location services but rather a database of cell towers. It contains no identifiable information and is sent to AT&T for analysis for signal strength statistics.
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
If you think that this is a privacy concern then you need to have your head examined. It is anonymous statistical information and nothing more.
*edit*
It is possible that this information was being collected for an AT&T app that you could download a while back and the OS is still collecting it in the background regardless of whether you have the app installed. Am I crazy or is there an AT&T app that consumes this data on the app store?
Would you mind telling us the source of this knowledge? While I have read that this happens only on GSM devices, I know from my device that it had data from all over the world. But most interesting would be where you found the information that that files gets shared with AT&T.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 4, 12:53 PM
Well done.
Cygnus311
Aug 28, 11:14 PM
I ordered the following iMac online yesterday and the ship date is shown as 9/12 (16 days from order date). Who knows what this means.
MAC 20/2.0/SD CTO
ATI Radeon X1600-256MB SDRAM
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM-2x1GB
500GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8X
Kybd, Mighty Mse & Mac OS X
Country Kit
Estimated Shipped By Estimated Delivered By
Sep 12, 2006 Sep 19, 2006
You upgraded RAM and HD through Apple?
MAC 20/2.0/SD CTO
ATI Radeon X1600-256MB SDRAM
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM-2x1GB
500GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8X
Kybd, Mighty Mse & Mac OS X
Country Kit
Estimated Shipped By Estimated Delivered By
Sep 12, 2006 Sep 19, 2006
You upgraded RAM and HD through Apple?
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:19 PM
Brian Tong could announce a 30inch 300dpi + 6 Core SB i7 + 24GB RAM + 500GB SSD + crossfired 6970 iMac for 500.00...and he'd still be totally worthless (unintelligent + NOT funny + unattractive + annoying as hell + probably hides cameras in the CNET women's bathrooms).
...Now Brian Cooley on the other hand, THAT DUDE ROCKS!
...Now Brian Cooley on the other hand, THAT DUDE ROCKS!
spicyapple
Oct 12, 06:14 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2006-10/25865863.jpg
sth
Apr 30, 04:23 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Most people keep their machines for at least a couple of years, so it makes sense to have TB built in. Many companies have announced that they are looking into TB, and not just for external storage. The possibilities of TB are much broader than that. Think of it as having PCIe on a cable. You could, for example, give your iMac USB3 support if a company decides to build an USB3 host with a Thunderbolt port. Same for eSATA etc...
Of course not much can be done right now, but you have to start somewhere to overcome the chicken/egg-problem.
We'll probably see broader support for TB when PCs based on Ivy Bridge are hitting the market next year (Intel has said to include TB support directly in the chipset). At that time, most of the people waiting here will still be using their mid-2011 iMacs for quite a few years to come.
Besides abolishing the ability of your graphics card, there are other interesting features of the processor. The hardware giant has confirmed that Sandy Bridge was designed with an integrated content protection to prevent piracy of high-end digital quality.
Just because the hardware supports it, it doesn't mean the software has to use it, especially in Apple's case. They even had seperate TPM chips built into the first Intel Macs and never actually used them for anything.
1- Matte screen option (Isn't there an aftermarket for this?)
No, there isn't. Putting an anti-glare film on a glass panel is NOT the same as a matte screen.
That's why I keep saying look for a redesign this Fall, just before or just after Lion is released.
What sense would it make for Apple to update the iMac twice in such a rapid succession? If anything, Apple's hardware cycles are getting even longer, mostly around 10-12 months in recent years. And at least from Intel, there will be nothing new to put into these machines by that date.
Lion is going to be released about a month after the new iMac, so if the redesign somehow really coincides with the release, it will probably happen right now.
Please keep USB 2.0 and Firewire for a couple more years.....
I don't think you have to worry about that for a long time.
In addition, we'll probably even get native USB3 in next year's models.
What's the deal with people wanting the matte version? Anyone care to explain the reasoning behind it to a noob like myself? Thanks in advance
If you have a window behind you or bad ceiling lights, the glass screen is almost unusable because of the reflections.
Matte screens do not have this problem because they diffuse the light.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Most people keep their machines for at least a couple of years, so it makes sense to have TB built in. Many companies have announced that they are looking into TB, and not just for external storage. The possibilities of TB are much broader than that. Think of it as having PCIe on a cable. You could, for example, give your iMac USB3 support if a company decides to build an USB3 host with a Thunderbolt port. Same for eSATA etc...
Of course not much can be done right now, but you have to start somewhere to overcome the chicken/egg-problem.
We'll probably see broader support for TB when PCs based on Ivy Bridge are hitting the market next year (Intel has said to include TB support directly in the chipset). At that time, most of the people waiting here will still be using their mid-2011 iMacs for quite a few years to come.
Besides abolishing the ability of your graphics card, there are other interesting features of the processor. The hardware giant has confirmed that Sandy Bridge was designed with an integrated content protection to prevent piracy of high-end digital quality.
Just because the hardware supports it, it doesn't mean the software has to use it, especially in Apple's case. They even had seperate TPM chips built into the first Intel Macs and never actually used them for anything.
1- Matte screen option (Isn't there an aftermarket for this?)
No, there isn't. Putting an anti-glare film on a glass panel is NOT the same as a matte screen.
That's why I keep saying look for a redesign this Fall, just before or just after Lion is released.
What sense would it make for Apple to update the iMac twice in such a rapid succession? If anything, Apple's hardware cycles are getting even longer, mostly around 10-12 months in recent years. And at least from Intel, there will be nothing new to put into these machines by that date.
Lion is going to be released about a month after the new iMac, so if the redesign somehow really coincides with the release, it will probably happen right now.
Please keep USB 2.0 and Firewire for a couple more years.....
I don't think you have to worry about that for a long time.
In addition, we'll probably even get native USB3 in next year's models.
What's the deal with people wanting the matte version? Anyone care to explain the reasoning behind it to a noob like myself? Thanks in advance
If you have a window behind you or bad ceiling lights, the glass screen is almost unusable because of the reflections.
Matte screens do not have this problem because they diffuse the light.
dwsolberg
Apr 4, 11:54 AM
The whole thing is sad for all involved � the people who committed the crimes and the security guard (really?) who killed one of them.
That said, this sort of thing does deter crime.
P.S. To the person who said that shooting someone in the head is "no accident," that's very unlikely to be true. It's extremely difficult to accurately hit a moving target. That's why police are trained to aim for center mass. (It's like aiming for the bullseye in hopes you'll hit somewhere on the target.)
That said, this sort of thing does deter crime.
P.S. To the person who said that shooting someone in the head is "no accident," that's very unlikely to be true. It's extremely difficult to accurately hit a moving target. That's why police are trained to aim for center mass. (It's like aiming for the bullseye in hopes you'll hit somewhere on the target.)
Chundles
Sep 15, 07:39 PM
...this law just got passed (today?). It won't be enforced until July next year, I think.
I wouldn't say it is stupid. The other day, I saw a woman driving a big SUV, a cellphone in one hand and an icecream in the other :eek:
It's been law in the whole country here for many years, not a stupid law at all and I've seen it enforced many times. If you're driving that's where 100% of your attention should be, just because you've got away with it before doesn't mean you always will.
I wouldn't say it is stupid. The other day, I saw a woman driving a big SUV, a cellphone in one hand and an icecream in the other :eek:
It's been law in the whole country here for many years, not a stupid law at all and I've seen it enforced many times. If you're driving that's where 100% of your attention should be, just because you've got away with it before doesn't mean you always will.