Stella
Apr 5, 01:54 PM
If Apple weren't so controlling Toyota wouldn't need to have this app in the jailbreaking community.
Sure, some of apple's rules are good - i.e., no private API calls, but others, utter garbage - its SJ's ego shinning through.
ADD: if more larger companies grew some and released jailbroken apps, Apple would rethink its policies.
Sure, some of apple's rules are good - i.e., no private API calls, but others, utter garbage - its SJ's ego shinning through.
ADD: if more larger companies grew some and released jailbroken apps, Apple would rethink its policies.
toxic
May 6, 12:23 AM
the PPC-Intel move is not comparable - Steve Jobs intended to switch to Intel from the beginning. this is just a backwards move for anything beyond the netbook space, which Apple isn't competing in.
bruinsrme
Apr 9, 06:36 PM
Well, you�re wrong. You�d need two more parentheses to SEE it that way.
No, that's the way I see it:D
No, that's the way I see it:D
EDH667
Nov 27, 07:06 AM
can anyone comment on the sound quality when playing music on the iphone via the tomtom kit when it's connected to the car's sound system?
reason for asking: when i use a standard audio cable from the headphone output of my iphone into my car's aux in, the sound quality leaves a lot to be desired. i basically have to crank up the volume all the way on both my car system and the iphone to hear anything, and even what i hear isn't all that great.
The sound quality of the Car Kit going through the aux jack is excellent. Much better than coming from the headphone jack.
reason for asking: when i use a standard audio cable from the headphone output of my iphone into my car's aux in, the sound quality leaves a lot to be desired. i basically have to crank up the volume all the way on both my car system and the iphone to hear anything, and even what i hear isn't all that great.
The sound quality of the Car Kit going through the aux jack is excellent. Much better than coming from the headphone jack.
GGJstudios
Dec 29, 10:45 AM
For those who insist that Mac OS X needs not AV protection, I politely disagree .... Today we know her as "Typhoid Mary". Approximately 30 people died as a direct result of the Typhus virus she carried, but was apparently immune to.
Poor analogy. Mary was a source of the virus. Macs are not the source of Windows viruses. No Mac can have a file containing a Windows virus, unless it first receives that file from a Windows computer. Windows, not Mac, is the source for Windows viruses.
Yes, Macs may be largely immune in today's threat environment.
Macs are not immune. They are not affected in any way by Windows malware, but they are not immune to threats. The only malware threats in the wild that can affect current Mac OS X are those which can be avoided by prudent action on the part of the user.
But threats change.
Yes, they do change. If the situation changes and a virus is introduced in the wild that affects Mac OS X, it will make news headlines and anyone paying attention will be alerted. Until that time, no AV software can detect a threat that does not yet exist.
But we all communicate with the Windows world.
Not every Mac user shares files with Windows users. You can communicate with Windows users without sharing files that could pose a threat.
Please consider taking one for the team and getting some sort of AV.
Interesting you should choose that phrase:
1. take one for the team
The act of someone willingly making a sacrafice for the benefit of others.
The only ones who would benefit by Mac users making the sacrifice of system performance in running AV software are Windows users who don't run AV software. Even then, it would only protect them from infected files you might send them. It would not protect them from files sent from other computers, websites, emails, IMs, etc., which pose a far greater threat than any Mac.
If Windows users are properly protected, they have no need for Mac users to run AV, since they're protected from threats, no matter where they come from. If you want to do this, that's your choice, but I have no desire to take steps to try to protect any Windows users who don't care enough to protect themselves.
Poor analogy. Mary was a source of the virus. Macs are not the source of Windows viruses. No Mac can have a file containing a Windows virus, unless it first receives that file from a Windows computer. Windows, not Mac, is the source for Windows viruses.
Yes, Macs may be largely immune in today's threat environment.
Macs are not immune. They are not affected in any way by Windows malware, but they are not immune to threats. The only malware threats in the wild that can affect current Mac OS X are those which can be avoided by prudent action on the part of the user.
But threats change.
Yes, they do change. If the situation changes and a virus is introduced in the wild that affects Mac OS X, it will make news headlines and anyone paying attention will be alerted. Until that time, no AV software can detect a threat that does not yet exist.
But we all communicate with the Windows world.
Not every Mac user shares files with Windows users. You can communicate with Windows users without sharing files that could pose a threat.
Please consider taking one for the team and getting some sort of AV.
Interesting you should choose that phrase:
1. take one for the team
The act of someone willingly making a sacrafice for the benefit of others.
The only ones who would benefit by Mac users making the sacrifice of system performance in running AV software are Windows users who don't run AV software. Even then, it would only protect them from infected files you might send them. It would not protect them from files sent from other computers, websites, emails, IMs, etc., which pose a far greater threat than any Mac.
If Windows users are properly protected, they have no need for Mac users to run AV, since they're protected from threats, no matter where they come from. If you want to do this, that's your choice, but I have no desire to take steps to try to protect any Windows users who don't care enough to protect themselves.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 23, 05:59 AM
I posted this question in another thread but no one has answered it, so... I was wondering what thoughts you had on this:
Will this upgrade to Core 2 Duo be considered a RevB strictly speaking, for the iMacs? I mean, since it's a new generation of Intel chip as opposed to a speed bump of an existing chip, is it likely to cause any unknown bugs or dramas that the Core Duos didn't?
I'm in the market for a new iMac when they put the new chips in, but I want to be confident that this time they'll have ironed out all the bugs from the initial release of Intel iMacs, plus not be likely to have new bugs caused by the new architecture of the Core 2 Duos.
Thoughts?
Chuck.
If iMacs get Merom its highly likely there'll be 0 new problems. If they get Conroe there is a very very small possibility of heat issues.
Will this upgrade to Core 2 Duo be considered a RevB strictly speaking, for the iMacs? I mean, since it's a new generation of Intel chip as opposed to a speed bump of an existing chip, is it likely to cause any unknown bugs or dramas that the Core Duos didn't?
I'm in the market for a new iMac when they put the new chips in, but I want to be confident that this time they'll have ironed out all the bugs from the initial release of Intel iMacs, plus not be likely to have new bugs caused by the new architecture of the Core 2 Duos.
Thoughts?
Chuck.
If iMacs get Merom its highly likely there'll be 0 new problems. If they get Conroe there is a very very small possibility of heat issues.
Multimedia
Sep 11, 01:27 PM
We'll find out tomorrow
BTW...what is the high end Merom processor? Is there a lower end processor? If there is the higher, faster one would go into the MBP while the lower end C2D is in the MB so you still have a discrepancy that warrants a higher price point. :cool:Top Merom is 2.33GHz and should be standard on both top 15" and 17" models - def the 17". Bottom of Merom is 1.66GHz and 1.83GHz with a 2MB shared L2 cache. 2GHz, 2.16GHz and 2.33GHz models have a 4MB shared L2 cache.
That's why the 2GHz Merom MacBook will be such a strategicly positioned superior product for the money and why the mini will still be crippled even when it switches to C2D at the same speeds. 2.33GHz is only 16.5% faster - not so much that you would even notice most of the time.
Only reason Merom MBP may not be announced tomorrow is for marketing reasons - not because it isn't ready. While they continue to manufacture them and build up a large inventory, we may have to endure these other product announcements so Apple can get all the heat focused on them until later this month when they can have the new MBP deployed worldwide in large quantities and be able to say "on sale today." and "Let the feeding frenzy begin."
On the other hand, because of Apple-Expo Paris, I think the MBP still has a better than 50% chance of being introduced tomorrow. Three years ago they introduced the revoluitonary Aluminium 15" PowerMac G4's @1.25GHz with USB 2 and FW 800 for the first time in a mobile Mac. I bought one a month later when Panther was introduced.
BTW...what is the high end Merom processor? Is there a lower end processor? If there is the higher, faster one would go into the MBP while the lower end C2D is in the MB so you still have a discrepancy that warrants a higher price point. :cool:Top Merom is 2.33GHz and should be standard on both top 15" and 17" models - def the 17". Bottom of Merom is 1.66GHz and 1.83GHz with a 2MB shared L2 cache. 2GHz, 2.16GHz and 2.33GHz models have a 4MB shared L2 cache.
That's why the 2GHz Merom MacBook will be such a strategicly positioned superior product for the money and why the mini will still be crippled even when it switches to C2D at the same speeds. 2.33GHz is only 16.5% faster - not so much that you would even notice most of the time.
Only reason Merom MBP may not be announced tomorrow is for marketing reasons - not because it isn't ready. While they continue to manufacture them and build up a large inventory, we may have to endure these other product announcements so Apple can get all the heat focused on them until later this month when they can have the new MBP deployed worldwide in large quantities and be able to say "on sale today." and "Let the feeding frenzy begin."
On the other hand, because of Apple-Expo Paris, I think the MBP still has a better than 50% chance of being introduced tomorrow. Three years ago they introduced the revoluitonary Aluminium 15" PowerMac G4's @1.25GHz with USB 2 and FW 800 for the first time in a mobile Mac. I bought one a month later when Panther was introduced.
My1stMacWasLisa
Nov 25, 05:48 AM
To the posters who say antivirus sioftware is 'unintrusive' I have to disagree. If you have it set to be live/active rather than passive then it is in the very nature of antivirus software to be intrusive. That's what it does, it intrudes into the normal functioning of your OS to add extracomplexity to perform intensive checks and or scans on every IO, local or remote, activity. If it didn't intrude it wouldn't work.
You may respond by saying well it didn't intrude to the extent that I noticed, well never the less it intrudes and it slows down the performance of your system. Your system is having to do extra work, the work of the AV software, perfromance is unavoudably impacted. You can't bend the laws of physics to give AV software a free ride.
As for those who say "you should at least have it installed so you don't pass viruses to other users". Well those other (windows) users have AV software installed, right? If they don't, they should, according to you argument. And if they haven't and they get a virus it's their fault not some Mac user way down the chain.
It is inevitable that Mac OS will eventually be more frequently targetted, however I have 'faith' the it is more secure than windows. And if and when the great Mac Virus Outbreak occurs, I'll install AV software, until then. NO.
You may respond by saying well it didn't intrude to the extent that I noticed, well never the less it intrudes and it slows down the performance of your system. Your system is having to do extra work, the work of the AV software, perfromance is unavoudably impacted. You can't bend the laws of physics to give AV software a free ride.
As for those who say "you should at least have it installed so you don't pass viruses to other users". Well those other (windows) users have AV software installed, right? If they don't, they should, according to you argument. And if they haven't and they get a virus it's their fault not some Mac user way down the chain.
It is inevitable that Mac OS will eventually be more frequently targetted, however I have 'faith' the it is more secure than windows. And if and when the great Mac Virus Outbreak occurs, I'll install AV software, until then. NO.
ezekielrage_99
Jul 30, 07:48 AM
Been there heard that....
Boring (dammit there are no sleeping emotion icons)
Boring (dammit there are no sleeping emotion icons)
Unspeaked
Aug 11, 11:11 AM
Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
firestarter
Mar 29, 08:41 AM
Seems strange that they're not rolling this out to iDevices. I can't see them having to hand over 30% of the revenue to Apple - this looks like more of a Dropbox competitor.
Possibly Apple's launch of a competitor is imminent, and Amazon just doesn't think that they can compete on Apple's home turf?
I hope this is true. Could be quite useful.
Possibly Apple's launch of a competitor is imminent, and Amazon just doesn't think that they can compete on Apple's home turf?
I hope this is true. Could be quite useful.
dom91932
May 8, 05:36 PM
This has never happened
I meant it might happen, it's just a thought.
I meant it might happen, it's just a thought.
thegreatluke
Aug 7, 05:29 PM
So if I want a mid-range tower, I can configured it to have less RAM, a smaller HD and a completely useless graphics card, and still come in $200-300 more than a comparable machine from Dell/Gateway/etc.? Why can't Apple sell me a desktop with 2GB RAM stock and a 250GB HD for less than two grand?
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
I'm SO angry too! I'm seriously going to be PISSED OFF until Apple offers a 50 GHz workstation with 32 GB of RAM and a 4 TB hard drive for free!
:rolleyes:
This and the MacBook are probably Apple's most competetively-priced computers.
Go ahead - buy a Mac Pro. When you get it, send me the useless graphics card. I wouldn't mind.
This is a good question. What happens if I put my x1900xt from my PC into one of these? Would it run under windows? If it would, then it should run under OS X with the correct driver, because it wouldn't be a hardware issue.
I am willing to bet that, at least for the graphics cards with mac specific drivers, you could buy the PC equivalent. If you branch out to different model numbers, you might run into problems.
Anyone have a MacPro they could lend me to test out my theory? :-)
Most PCI-express graphics cards would work in a Mac Pro without a problem.
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
I'm SO angry too! I'm seriously going to be PISSED OFF until Apple offers a 50 GHz workstation with 32 GB of RAM and a 4 TB hard drive for free!
:rolleyes:
This and the MacBook are probably Apple's most competetively-priced computers.
Go ahead - buy a Mac Pro. When you get it, send me the useless graphics card. I wouldn't mind.
This is a good question. What happens if I put my x1900xt from my PC into one of these? Would it run under windows? If it would, then it should run under OS X with the correct driver, because it wouldn't be a hardware issue.
I am willing to bet that, at least for the graphics cards with mac specific drivers, you could buy the PC equivalent. If you branch out to different model numbers, you might run into problems.
Anyone have a MacPro they could lend me to test out my theory? :-)
Most PCI-express graphics cards would work in a Mac Pro without a problem.
wclyffe
Dec 8, 12:53 PM
Well guys, I just called my local Apple store and they have the kit in stock. That, and given the 1 -2 months delivery on apple.com and no news at all from BLT, means that for me at least, it's time to bite the bullet.
I've thought about doing the same thing, but I'm traveling most of December and won't be in my car much. Look forward to your thoughts especially about how well the bluetooth speakerphone works while driving around.
I've thought about doing the same thing, but I'm traveling most of December and won't be in my car much. Look forward to your thoughts especially about how well the bluetooth speakerphone works while driving around.
SiCbe
Sep 11, 01:48 PM
so I was looking around the apple store this afternoon till I noticed something :D
When selecting the MBP in the apple store you'll get some info below...
There's this one title where it shows front row... it says "It's showtime" :)
maybe it's a hint from apple :rolleyes: the MBP is the onle one where it says "it's showtime". the rest all say something else like "put on a show"...
ah well I'm just going crazy from waiting for the new MBP's...
(first post though I've been reading here for a long time)
When selecting the MBP in the apple store you'll get some info below...
There's this one title where it shows front row... it says "It's showtime" :)
maybe it's a hint from apple :rolleyes: the MBP is the onle one where it says "it's showtime". the rest all say something else like "put on a show"...
ah well I'm just going crazy from waiting for the new MBP's...
(first post though I've been reading here for a long time)
balamw
Apr 9, 09:15 PM
Tastes great. (who's with me):p
Given your argument I would have thought you'd represent "less filling". :p
B
Given your argument I would have thought you'd represent "less filling". :p
B
kalsta
May 6, 12:11 PM
If you told the average American male that his 5 inch penis was 13 centimeters, we'd be on the metric system a week from Thursday.
Can't argue with that logic. :D
Can't argue with that logic. :D
Popeye206
Apr 7, 10:54 AM
All hail Tim Cook!
Seriously though, I think people are going to be surprised at how well RIM rebounds. Not that they are going to stop or even slow the iPad or iPhone train, but I will surprised if they don't carve themselves out a pretty good niche.
They're a much more resilient company than that for which they are given credit. Do some serious research into the company as though you were looking to invest, and you'll find out that they got a little too complacent for a time, but they have some vision that will surprise people in the coming years.
RIM can be a serious player again. They have the name and the resources as well as the most experience in the corporate world with mobile communications. But, they are loosing ground to Apple and Google based equipment faster than you can shake a stick and they don't seem to be using all their resources very well at this time.
Seriously though, I think people are going to be surprised at how well RIM rebounds. Not that they are going to stop or even slow the iPad or iPhone train, but I will surprised if they don't carve themselves out a pretty good niche.
They're a much more resilient company than that for which they are given credit. Do some serious research into the company as though you were looking to invest, and you'll find out that they got a little too complacent for a time, but they have some vision that will surprise people in the coming years.
RIM can be a serious player again. They have the name and the resources as well as the most experience in the corporate world with mobile communications. But, they are loosing ground to Apple and Google based equipment faster than you can shake a stick and they don't seem to be using all their resources very well at this time.
petvas
May 4, 03:14 PM
Can you boot off the stuff in the DMG?
I havent tried that but you can create a bootable USB drive: http://www.blogchampion.com/blog/2011/3/12/how-to-create-a-bootable-mac-os-x-lion-usb-installer-from-ap.html
When I am back home I will try to burn the dmg file and see if it boots.
I havent tried that but you can create a bootable USB drive: http://www.blogchampion.com/blog/2011/3/12/how-to-create-a-bootable-mac-os-x-lion-usb-installer-from-ap.html
When I am back home I will try to burn the dmg file and see if it boots.
Peace
Jul 30, 10:32 PM
The Verizon Chocolate cellphone is made by LG Electronics of Korea.
http://www.lg.co.kr/english/index.jsp
http://www.lg.co.kr/english/index.jsp
kfury77
Mar 29, 09:25 AM
It's yet another Dropbox offering that's a long ways behind awesome-integration with other products (Lots of apps sync data between devices via Dropbox). And, if I put a music file into dropbox I can play it, mobile device independent.
Also, why would I only want my music accessible when I have internet? Any road trips from where I live (Utah) generally put me in EDGE territory which won't be consistently fast enough to stream the audio at enough quality, let alone the fact that there are several dead spots along the way. I'll stick to having my music on my iPhone. No buffer, no stutter, no data usage. Oh, yeah. That. Data usage. With carriers bottlenecking you now, you think they'll favor Amazon cloud delivery for people who want to stream their music all day long? They (Amazon) will probably also do some more compression on the files so it'll sound like listening to your music in a tin can.
At first glance, being very pessimistic, I'm not really interested in this product.
Wheezy - Instead of incorrectly assuming things, why don't you give it a try? You're in the US and it's free to set up. I've been using it all day (have uploaded 5GB of music) and it's a fantastic service. The web-based front-end if very fast, automatically updates with any new music that has been uploaded without refreshing the whole page. All music is played as it was uploaded (not recompressed).
I've uploaded only the maximum quality MP3 files (320 Kbps) and they sound great. It displays the artwork, you can create playlists, it's actually faster to use than iTunes (as my iTunes music library is so big). I have a netbook with limited storage, but now when I go to an office, or my parents place or to a coffee shop with wifi I have a big chunk of my music collection there to listen to if I wish. You can download and upload music as much as you want - there are no bandwidth limits at all. You can also upload music from Linux, OS X or Windows. It's pretty versatile and I'm sure they have more plans to improve it further. What's not to like?
Also, why would I only want my music accessible when I have internet? Any road trips from where I live (Utah) generally put me in EDGE territory which won't be consistently fast enough to stream the audio at enough quality, let alone the fact that there are several dead spots along the way. I'll stick to having my music on my iPhone. No buffer, no stutter, no data usage. Oh, yeah. That. Data usage. With carriers bottlenecking you now, you think they'll favor Amazon cloud delivery for people who want to stream their music all day long? They (Amazon) will probably also do some more compression on the files so it'll sound like listening to your music in a tin can.
At first glance, being very pessimistic, I'm not really interested in this product.
Wheezy - Instead of incorrectly assuming things, why don't you give it a try? You're in the US and it's free to set up. I've been using it all day (have uploaded 5GB of music) and it's a fantastic service. The web-based front-end if very fast, automatically updates with any new music that has been uploaded without refreshing the whole page. All music is played as it was uploaded (not recompressed).
I've uploaded only the maximum quality MP3 files (320 Kbps) and they sound great. It displays the artwork, you can create playlists, it's actually faster to use than iTunes (as my iTunes music library is so big). I have a netbook with limited storage, but now when I go to an office, or my parents place or to a coffee shop with wifi I have a big chunk of my music collection there to listen to if I wish. You can download and upload music as much as you want - there are no bandwidth limits at all. You can also upload music from Linux, OS X or Windows. It's pretty versatile and I'm sure they have more plans to improve it further. What's not to like?
Core Trio
Jul 21, 02:04 PM
Noooo....must...resist urges to buy...new MBP's
Just have to keep reminding myself I cant afford these things right now..
Just have to keep reminding myself I cant afford these things right now..
deconstruct60
Apr 21, 10:01 PM
Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on redevelopment for an audience of, lets say 50,000 customers when you can spend the same amount on an audience of 1million+ customers.
Full of Win
May 8, 02:45 AM
If apple is looking for a way to fend off android then this may be part of the strategy. Mac.com is what makes my iThings work. If it was not for the sync OTA, then I very well may have been on another phone by now. Can't tell you how many times that it has saved me ass.