Wiiner Photo Walpaper

The Radio Shack in my city just received their pre-order shipment. They got 2. They had a total of 6 pre-orders.

I don't believe that we have to wait until Spring 2007.:mad:

Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!

I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D

The French have been particularly strong lately. First Landis, Now M$. What happened to the white towel? :D ....sorry couldn't resist.

Oh, we are totally getting an iPad app to go along with this program. I can feel it.

I would oh-so love the ability to down-rez a Final Cut project and send it to an iPad...do all my rough cutting there...and then bring it back to the Mac and re-link it to the real footage to do the detail work.

I've had a lot of fun playing with iMovie on the iPad. I am drooling for something similar that works as part of a Final Cut Pro workflow.




I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?

I'm not so sure about the down res option, it sounds like an awful lot of time spent compressing, though I sure hope it is some type of interface, perhaps as an input device or palette.

I think this makes somewhat sense... When i went to best buy on launch day they ran out... and then i went back and they were doing $100 pre-orders to be put on a list (which i never ended up doing)... so what they did is had a ton of people pay a hundred bucks to put on a best buy gift card and then "shorten" the supply so that people would have to be impatient and go buy somewhere else--which forced people to spend that hundred dollars at BB.
Kind of a cheap selfish way to make money. hundreds of pre-orders and then only a few ipad sales...
it still doesn't make sense to not sell what you have in stock though... stupidI was one of the ones that put $100 down then receive my pad 4 days later. i thought that was a little suspect.

I'm sure the GPU will also be bumped, at the very least. The MBP will probably also see some things that the MB has like a user-removable hard drive and magnetic latch. The CPU and GPU alone make it worth getting the new one, IMO.

Also, I'll say it one last time (yea right) - the imac should not and will not get a mobile processor. It only got Yonah because there was no alternative. It had a real desktop processor when one was available on the PPC side (G5), and it will have a real desktop processor now that one is available on the intel side (Conroe). Leave merom for what it was meant for - laptops.


I agree with you wholeheartedly.

But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?

Yet what he said is 100% accurate..Weird how that can happen sometimes.

Gruber is rarely accurate in his conclusions, and this time is no exception.

None of what is happening smacks of being a "bait-and-switch" as he claims. That would've required extremely clever pre-planning years ago on the part of Google.

Instead, it's got all the hallmarks of too little pre-planning.

Anyone with experience dealing with large projects can see that Rubin has belatedly come to realize that things were getting out of control. Now he is goofing up trying to take full control himself instead of doing the smart thing and first getting a consensus from the OHA members.

This is interesting, BUT, from what I know, Intel announced the desktop (Conroe) Core 2 Duo proccessor on July 27, and as far as I know, no Conroe systems are shipping right now, almost a month later.

Dell has announced some Conroe systems that you can order, but as far as I know they aren't readily shipping yet.

:eek: :eek:

What's planned after that? 16 cores on a chip? Seriously?? :confused: :confused:

yeah, who would've thought we're having quad core 4 years ago.

It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).

You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.

Is this the same government that allowed warrantless wire tapping? The same federal government that allowed Halliburton no bid contracts in Iraq? Interesting how some cherry pick (this is not referring to you at all, just a general statement, not meant to be personal :) ), "government is bad, social healthcare is bad, but wait, federal lawsuits have merit, government is right".

A lot of federal lawsuits have no merit and there has been no ruling. Thus if a lawsuit is federal = all federal lawsuits are valid TRUE, doesn't make sense. Perhaps waiting this out for more information would be prudent instead of jumping down each others' throats. (again, this is not directed at you, just clarifying so no one thinks I'm "taking this to the mattresses" lol)

I do not understand why every thread on MacRumors turns into a free-for-all. It should be called "MacFeuders"… ;)

I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.

However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.

If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.

Same logic me thinks…

It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.

I was once proud of the Trump Tower here in Chicago. Now I'd like to see it burned to the ground.

What are you, a terrorist? lol

If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.

I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.

Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.

I'm sorry, Bill, but your logic has one big flaw.

If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?

I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate. I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex.

I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.

I don't see any point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex, since I think homosexuality is a psychological problem caused by nurture, not by nature. My mom used to counsel same-sex-attracted people when she was a nurse and a counselor at a local drug rehabilitation hospital. Her patients liked her, even after he told them that she thought same-sex sex was never okay. They respected her for her honesty. She was brave enough to tell them some things that they didn't want to hear, because she knew that they needed to hear them. Political correctness is evil when it prevents people from saying things that others need to hear for their own good.

In about 1962, Pope John XXII refused to condemn heresies because he thought mercy was better than severity. But he ignored that people sometimes need to be severe to show their love for others. I'm all for tact and gentleness. But I'm against political correctness that protects feeling at the expense of the potentially offended person's physical, psychological, or moral wellbeing. John XXIII was like a doctor who would say, "I don't want to talk about killing bacteria, cancer cells, and so on. I think I should just promote good heath." But what if the patient died because, say, the doctor refused to do chemo or wouldn't tell a patient that without it, she would die of cancer? Is the doctor being kind? Is he being negligent? If he doesn't care enough about his patients to tell them bad news that they need to hear, he should stop seeing them.

Here at the board, the others are welcome believe anything they want to believe about me. If I make some enemies by merely saying what I believe, then that gives me a chance to love them. But I refuse to be politically correct.

Damn. Though the interesting thing is I don't need the speed increase, My Core Duo iMac is too fast fast for my mediocre every day use. It still want Merom, badly, not knowing why.
haha At least you get it. :) Most people shouldn't fall into the everchurning machine on incremental updates to keep people buying more than they really need.
But for some it makes a difference though, usually the Pro-users, and time saved on processing data is time saved for making money, and I understand why they "need" it. Well, maybe I understand so readily because I "need" it myself. :)

Sure, but did Samsung patent it?

It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'

All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.

And the design was released after the iPhone was out.

Can we all agree to this:

Yes, some people are racist. They hate Obama and always will.
Some people aren't and still hate him. They always will. That's politics.
Some people love conspiracy theories. This will never die for them. Neither will 9/11 theories, Bush's service record in the National Guard, Bill Clinton killing lots of dudes to hide affairs/scams.

Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.

Untill the cooling-solution starts to leak fluids, that is ;)?

I noticed that the HTC and Samsung cases only share just one patent: the bounce-back one.

And the Samsung adds many trademark and state law unfair competition claims.

Arguing that they're the same because Apple will lose them both is bootstrapping.

Won't happen.

yeah, i hope you're right. just doesn't seem right

This intel crap updates far too frequently...ugh

:mad:

Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with it.

They've always had updates roughly every 3-6 months, of one kind or another.