MacsomJRR
Nov 27, 01:09 AM
As a student I would LOVE to have a Mac tablet with a screen maybe a little bigger than an A4 sized piece of paper. It would be so helpful to be able to scribble notes down and I sure that Apple could come up with some fantastic and creative software for note taking and the like. It's exciting to think this could actually finally by happening sometime next year. Look for my MBP on ebay if this actually happens:):D
johnnyturbouk
Apr 10, 10:10 AM
am�big�u�ous/amˈbigyo͞oəs/Adjective
1. (of language) Open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
2. Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
The problem may be confusing to some; it certainly is not ambiguous. There are rules in math, if you follow them, there is only one answer. Period.
i agree and disagree!
I believe the problem stated was ambiguous since he/she did not express the equation with parentheses that would have helped to expound the problem in a more accurate manner!
The equation should of been expressed as: (48/2) x (9+3)
Mathematics do have rules, and thus will almost certainly yield one answer, this only holds true if there was clear presentation of the facts stated, rather than the reader making inferences from the initial question: which in this case was poorly numbered (worded)
1. (of language) Open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
2. Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
The problem may be confusing to some; it certainly is not ambiguous. There are rules in math, if you follow them, there is only one answer. Period.
i agree and disagree!
I believe the problem stated was ambiguous since he/she did not express the equation with parentheses that would have helped to expound the problem in a more accurate manner!
The equation should of been expressed as: (48/2) x (9+3)
Mathematics do have rules, and thus will almost certainly yield one answer, this only holds true if there was clear presentation of the facts stated, rather than the reader making inferences from the initial question: which in this case was poorly numbered (worded)
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 05:20 PM
Can't you just use an image search and prove me wrong? Find me a Galaxy Tab with a rounded back made of plastic, chrome bezel and physical home button. Being a former owner of both the Galaxy Tab and an iPhone 3g I will disagree with you.
I already posted an image earlier in this thread. The back of a white Galaxy Tab and the back of a white iPhone 3GS. If you don't see them as strikingly similar, I don't know what else to tell you.
I already posted an image earlier in this thread. The back of a white Galaxy Tab and the back of a white iPhone 3GS. If you don't see them as strikingly similar, I don't know what else to tell you.
jeznav
Apr 5, 01:37 PM
iOS 4 adds wallpapers.
iOS 5 with custom skins?
iOS 5 with custom skins?
99MustangGTman
Dec 13, 10:08 PM
Almost bought the kit, but when I went to the Apple store and actually saw it in person I couldn't justify paying $120+tax for a piece of plastic. Yeah, yeah yeah, it has bluetooth, charges the phone, and has a gps chip. Its ridiculous to have to pay $100 for an app and $120 for a piece of plastic.
Tonsko
Dec 7, 04:51 AM
Did you even bother to read this link that someone posted for you cav23j? http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Slow-down-when-scanning-Work-around-now-available/td-p/295
Was having problems getting sophos to complete a scan without bringing the MBP to a standstill and require a reboot... I read that thread and everything worked as it shouild. It has given me no other problems.
Was having problems getting sophos to complete a scan without bringing the MBP to a standstill and require a reboot... I read that thread and everything worked as it shouild. It has given me no other problems.
bella92108
Apr 5, 03:01 PM
even google disagrees with you - they wish in the meantime to have forced more control over the carriers (as they already admitted in the public) :D
But hey, I'm done arguing with fanboys. There's no logic behind a fanboy's arguments, it's just fanaticism. I base my opinion on first hand experience with Apple's latest product, and numerous latest handsets running Android. All the fanboys on here say "I used ____ before..." well yeah if you compare a 2 year old handset with a 2 year old OS, sure iOS 4.3 will win, but when you only come out with a handset once a year, 1 month after a product launch there will be better options. Technology changes far too much to come out with ONE mobile phone per year.
Done with this discussion, it's going nowhere.
But hey, I'm done arguing with fanboys. There's no logic behind a fanboy's arguments, it's just fanaticism. I base my opinion on first hand experience with Apple's latest product, and numerous latest handsets running Android. All the fanboys on here say "I used ____ before..." well yeah if you compare a 2 year old handset with a 2 year old OS, sure iOS 4.3 will win, but when you only come out with a handset once a year, 1 month after a product launch there will be better options. Technology changes far too much to come out with ONE mobile phone per year.
Done with this discussion, it's going nowhere.
RebootD
Mar 30, 09:12 PM
I lol'd. No matter what people will complain. When Snow Leopard was released people wanted more UI changes and more features. Now when Lion is released all people want is under the hood improvements. SMH
No no no, we want useful UI improvements not iOS fluff.
No no no, we want useful UI improvements not iOS fluff.
Jimmy James
Apr 5, 03:07 PM
I can understand Apple's concern here it could give the impression to an uneducated user that it is OK to jailbreak their phone since they are being encouraged to by what would seem like a legitimate source.
But it is okay to jailbrake your device.
And no, I've never done a jailbrake on my personal device. But I have the option should I want it.
But it is okay to jailbrake your device.
And no, I've never done a jailbrake on my personal device. But I have the option should I want it.
shawnce
Aug 2, 01:21 PM
As a 30" display owner, theres no way a screen larger then 30" would be a feasible desktop display. Besides, anything larger then 30" is just too niche of a market. Don't think larger, think more pixels per inch (resolution independent UI (http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html) does need a poster child).
Now will they show up at WWDC... personally higher pixel density displays likely wont just yet (would love to be surprised however) but possibly a slight revamp of the currently display lineup (adding in iSight) isn't to far out of the realm of possibilities.
Now will they show up at WWDC... personally higher pixel density displays likely wont just yet (would love to be surprised however) but possibly a slight revamp of the currently display lineup (adding in iSight) isn't to far out of the realm of possibilities.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 10:42 AM
Currently, roughly how much would a display that meets retina specs cost?
Depends. What size display and what is the normal viewing distance for that type of display ? With both those, we can calculate the required PPI and see if something already exists in that size or not.
You might be surprised to find out it's already out there and quite competitively priced in some cases.
Depends. What size display and what is the normal viewing distance for that type of display ? With both those, we can calculate the required PPI and see if something already exists in that size or not.
You might be surprised to find out it's already out there and quite competitively priced in some cases.
arkmannj
May 7, 10:20 PM
I would be shocked... but you never know. Maybe they will offer it for free if you purchase a Mac.
That's the way it used to be with the old .mac, it was a selling point. You get a mac and you got email, a .mac web address, 'n such. Then they'd charge for extra space 'n such.
That's the way it used to be with the old .mac, it was a selling point. You get a mac and you got email, a .mac web address, 'n such. Then they'd charge for extra space 'n such.
thejadedmonkey
Aug 2, 10:50 AM
I can't wait!
5 days to go, and I'm in need of an iPod and reallllly really really wanna get a look at this 'Leapord' thing everyone's talking about so much! So maybe I don't get my iPod, I'm still really excited. Apple's been so boring this year, with a bluetooth might mouse just about the most exciting release thus far... I have expectations Apple, don't let me dont please
5 days to go, and I'm in need of an iPod and reallllly really really wanna get a look at this 'Leapord' thing everyone's talking about so much! So maybe I don't get my iPod, I'm still really excited. Apple's been so boring this year, with a bluetooth might mouse just about the most exciting release thus far... I have expectations Apple, don't let me dont please
aafuss1
Sep 11, 09:16 AM
Excellent!
Good find!
I'd like to see iPod5/6th Gen tubes, similar to the nano's.
Good find!
I'd like to see iPod5/6th Gen tubes, similar to the nano's.
codyc815
Apr 26, 02:47 PM
Good! I don't like Apple being highest in these kind of things. The number one retailer in the country is Walmart, doesn't make it good. Audi and Mercedes aren't the most used cars, but they're the nicest.
Chupa Chupa
Aug 4, 12:07 PM
Don't worry, I say this now -NO MBP CPU UPDATE AT WWDC- or till December for that matter.
I think that depends on what Dell, Sony, Toshiba, etc, come out with. No way is Apple going to still be selling a 2.16 Core Duo at it's top end laptop when the PC makers have Core 2 Duo chips. I'm pretty sure Apple will speed bump the MBP as soon after they get enough Meroms for production. Remember, they bumped the original MBP only 3 months after intro, and almost as soon as the faster chips were available.
I think that depends on what Dell, Sony, Toshiba, etc, come out with. No way is Apple going to still be selling a 2.16 Core Duo at it's top end laptop when the PC makers have Core 2 Duo chips. I'm pretty sure Apple will speed bump the MBP as soon after they get enough Meroms for production. Remember, they bumped the original MBP only 3 months after intro, and almost as soon as the faster chips were available.
mscriv
May 3, 11:26 AM
Hmm, interesting. I'm not eligible since I didn't play in Intell's last game, but this looks like fun.
citizenzen
Apr 14, 04:24 PM
We should also cut spending across the board. Cut spending on EVERYTHING.
Repeating myself ...
I find this approach highly irrational. If you're overweight, it's important to lose fat. It does no good whatsoever to treat brain the same as fat ... to treat vital organs the same as fat ... to treat limbs and digits the same as fat.
Repeating myself ...
I find this approach highly irrational. If you're overweight, it's important to lose fat. It does no good whatsoever to treat brain the same as fat ... to treat vital organs the same as fat ... to treat limbs and digits the same as fat.
lilo777
Apr 26, 04:32 PM
This is obvious because iOS is from one company...selling iOS devices. Android is o. Every other device that really isn't any competition if u ask me...every HTC, motorola , are now stocking android that they just got lazy. "oh we just made a quad core with 7 cameras...let's add android...perfect..exactly like an evo"....boring...some say "oh iOS isn't exciting" in earlier posts are wrong...not that I'm a fanboy to iOS..I'm a fanboy to the best I see..and android for a fact isn't...every damn android device has nothing different then just cameras...evo..shift..thunderbolt...droid...it's just stupid...what happened to when cell phones competed for hardware and software?
You are mocking the wrong companies. Quad Core Android phones? Tell us more about it. There are dual core phones and guess what - Apple will follow suit (with usual delay). Same goes with the cameras. Apple is lagging there too. Android phones and tablets get good stuff first (including cameras, and no, there are no Android phones with 7 cameras).
While Android phones may not be that different from each other (although physical keyboard, screen size, LTE etc. are not so small differentiators) it's still much better than iPhone situation: one model (and then a white one a year later).
You are mocking the wrong companies. Quad Core Android phones? Tell us more about it. There are dual core phones and guess what - Apple will follow suit (with usual delay). Same goes with the cameras. Apple is lagging there too. Android phones and tablets get good stuff first (including cameras, and no, there are no Android phones with 7 cameras).
While Android phones may not be that different from each other (although physical keyboard, screen size, LTE etc. are not so small differentiators) it's still much better than iPhone situation: one model (and then a white one a year later).
guzhogi
Jul 22, 02:27 PM
I'd like to see Mac Minis start at $499, MacBooks & iMacs start at $999, MacBook Pro start out at $1499 and the Mac Pro at $1999. Maybe add a midtower mac at $1499. Don't know how likely this is, but just a thought
wclyffe
Jan 5, 01:15 PM
BUT i'm curious whether the satnav apps are waiting on the mount's fix or taking first availalble? ... i would hope they'd wait on mount since ultimately it should have more precision since it's called 'enhanced' GPS, but how can you tell for sure?
one thing i've tried is to remove the iPhone from the mount after navigating and see if it disrupts the GPS signal w/in the satnav app ... i would expect there to be a switch over to internal GPS and see a small disruption ... but i'm not getting a disrupted signal ... can't be sure one way or the other
Here's what I've noticed in just one day of use. I'm using Navigon and I did download the TomTom Free App to stop the message from appearing each time. With my 3Gs docked in the car kit, I get the my directions locked in about 5 seconds from when I hit the "Start Navigation" button. I also tried an experiment in my garage, where my phone was unable to get the GPS signal, but docked I had a route in motion in under 5 seconds. Still experimenting.....
one thing i've tried is to remove the iPhone from the mount after navigating and see if it disrupts the GPS signal w/in the satnav app ... i would expect there to be a switch over to internal GPS and see a small disruption ... but i'm not getting a disrupted signal ... can't be sure one way or the other
Here's what I've noticed in just one day of use. I'm using Navigon and I did download the TomTom Free App to stop the message from appearing each time. With my 3Gs docked in the car kit, I get the my directions locked in about 5 seconds from when I hit the "Start Navigation" button. I also tried an experiment in my garage, where my phone was unable to get the GPS signal, but docked I had a route in motion in under 5 seconds. Still experimenting.....
IntelliUser
Nov 12, 10:31 AM
I use Eset NOD32 on my pc and i must say it's the best AV software in my opinion after testing many others. Once they make their AV available on mac i will get it.
It's already available http://www.eset.com/home/cybersecurity-for-mac
It's already available http://www.eset.com/home/cybersecurity-for-mac
koruki
Mar 29, 03:00 PM
Hard for me, even as an Apple fan, to weep too much for a company that chooses to do business overseas isntead of here in America, employing Americans.
Hopefully the situation in Japan improves -- for reasons beyond this.
ah nothing like starting the day with a bit of ignorance. :cool:
Hopefully the situation in Japan improves -- for reasons beyond this.
ah nothing like starting the day with a bit of ignorance. :cool:
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)