twoodcc
Dec 26, 01:14 PM
well of course i'd love for this to be true, but i doubt it
anonymouz1828
Apr 15, 12:51 PM
I am waiting for a resistant case to cracks and drops. However .. no flash .. i cant take that .. it is really getting bored with same stuff ... change more. Otherwise will start to look for some htc.
byeehaaw
Jan 15, 02:19 PM
where is 10.5.2!? that was the main thing i was looking for lol
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
SPEEDwithJJ
Apr 12, 03:13 PM
Wait......do you guys have a little obsession with cupcakes, or an obsession with little cupcakes?
I just want to be clear, that's all. ;)
Haha. :D That's a good one. I LOL at that! :p
I just want to be clear, that's all. ;)
Haha. :D That's a good one. I LOL at that! :p
KnightWRX
Mar 25, 06:21 AM
Happy BD keynote?!
They didn't even put up a small square on their Mac sub-page.
I do hope OS X still has a good 10 years in front of it. The best of both worlds for Unix people.
They didn't even put up a small square on their Mac sub-page.
I do hope OS X still has a good 10 years in front of it. The best of both worlds for Unix people.
Vidder
Dec 4, 06:39 PM
I was playing this game today and the final kill cam was of a guy getting shot who was standing in the middle of a road (where he spawned) aimed at the sky shooting at a helicopter with what looked like a Light Machine gun of some sort. The guy who shot him was in a room looking out a window. As the replay was going on i stated over the mic "now there's an intelligent player" referring to the guy who was under no cover trying to take down a chopper with a gun. The guy who was shooting at the chopper stated that he was trying to fulfill and achievement by taking the chopper down.
I thought about this and realized that this goal/reward system in the game (this goes for most online FPS's) in a way made this player do something so stupid. The player was only looking to fulfill his own personal goals and thought nothing of the team and the loss that occurred cause of it.
So I ask you, (the reader) does this make sense to have in the game when it forces players to go out of there way for personal goals and shift away from the overall team play?
free wallpapers for desktop
free wallpapers for desktop
Download Free Wallpaper:
wallpaper nature. Desktop
Desktop Wallpapers - Free PC
free wallpapers for desktop
I thought about this and realized that this goal/reward system in the game (this goes for most online FPS's) in a way made this player do something so stupid. The player was only looking to fulfill his own personal goals and thought nothing of the team and the loss that occurred cause of it.
So I ask you, (the reader) does this make sense to have in the game when it forces players to go out of there way for personal goals and shift away from the overall team play?
OllyW
May 3, 01:50 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Why read it if you are not interested?
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Why read it if you are not interested?
berkleeboy210
Oct 11, 11:08 AM
Thats a good call!
They did this same thing last year. in September held an event for the nano and the itunes phone.
and in october an event for the ipod w/ video and for the imacs....
They did this same thing last year. in September held an event for the nano and the itunes phone.
and in october an event for the ipod w/ video and for the imacs....
0010101
Nov 16, 12:53 PM
Moving to, or simply including a 'budget' line of AMD powered Macs wouldn't be a big deal at all.
The vast majority of everyday computer users don't know the difference between AMD and Intel, anyway.
AMD is more than capable of meeting Apple demand, by the way, considering that if Apple were to include an AMD option, that option would likely only represent a portion of an already small market share.. and more than likely in a low end 'budget' machine.
What Apple has learned over the years, is it's best not to box yourself in with a single part manufacturer like they did with the PPC. Their migration from ADB to USB, from NuBus to PCI & AGP.. Apple has really been making the transition from proprietary hardware for some time.. the actual CPU was really the last piece in a much larger puzzle.
As mentioned earlier, many people in the 'osx86' camp have successfully installed OSX on AMD powered machines, and in many cases, with great results rivaling that of the higher end Intel powered machines. The only stumbling block appears to be that Apple has been using specific Intel motherboard chipsets, which aren't overly AMD friendly.
It would be easy for Apple to include AMD processor support in 10.5, and release it along with a line of sub $500 iMac machines.
Although I suspect Apple probably enjoys a nice price break on the Intel hardware, a price break that very well could hinge on Apple being an 'exclusive' Intel customer.
I personally have never cared for AMD processors much.
The vast majority of everyday computer users don't know the difference between AMD and Intel, anyway.
AMD is more than capable of meeting Apple demand, by the way, considering that if Apple were to include an AMD option, that option would likely only represent a portion of an already small market share.. and more than likely in a low end 'budget' machine.
What Apple has learned over the years, is it's best not to box yourself in with a single part manufacturer like they did with the PPC. Their migration from ADB to USB, from NuBus to PCI & AGP.. Apple has really been making the transition from proprietary hardware for some time.. the actual CPU was really the last piece in a much larger puzzle.
As mentioned earlier, many people in the 'osx86' camp have successfully installed OSX on AMD powered machines, and in many cases, with great results rivaling that of the higher end Intel powered machines. The only stumbling block appears to be that Apple has been using specific Intel motherboard chipsets, which aren't overly AMD friendly.
It would be easy for Apple to include AMD processor support in 10.5, and release it along with a line of sub $500 iMac machines.
Although I suspect Apple probably enjoys a nice price break on the Intel hardware, a price break that very well could hinge on Apple being an 'exclusive' Intel customer.
I personally have never cared for AMD processors much.
Choppaface
Oct 4, 09:45 PM
Apple needs to start working on a new business model while the studios are still suing their customers and the TV boom is still on. If they dont they're going to be beaten overseas. Enough with the legal rhetoric damn it, evolve your business model or you'll lose.
Sdashiki
Jan 9, 12:38 PM
Keynote Stream Available Live On Cnn Pipeline.
not free?
not free?
Chundles
Nov 16, 12:34 PM
please no page 1 vs page 2 comments... :)
wallpaper desktop nature free
wallpaper desktop nature
free wallpapers of nature for
Nature Wallpaper
Widescreen Wallpapers of
free wallpapers nature.
prady16
Sep 12, 08:28 AM
damn..
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
If not today, we could see an MB/MBP update sometime after Sep 16th when the free ipod nano promo expires. That's my best guess, but even i am hoping desperately for the update to happen today!
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
If not today, we could see an MB/MBP update sometime after Sep 16th when the free ipod nano promo expires. That's my best guess, but even i am hoping desperately for the update to happen today!
jclardy
May 3, 09:30 PM
just getting started...iPad 3!
Or you know, the more obvious conclusion - iOS 5.
Or you know, the more obvious conclusion - iOS 5.
iJon
Jul 21, 10:19 AM
I love the way that every time Apple show an image or video of one of their employees "holding" another phone to demonstrate this signal attenuation, they always appear to be literally crushing the phone in their hand. Whereas, with the i4, you just sit it comfortably in the pocket of your palm.
Apple has become the new Microsoft. They have lost that connection they had with their customers where they would strive to please. Now they just sit back like the rest and go "well you bought it, it's your problem."
"If you don't want an iPhone 4 don't buy it. If you bought one and you don't like it, bring it back."
Apple has become the new Microsoft. They have lost that connection they had with their customers where they would strive to please. Now they just sit back like the rest and go "well you bought it, it's your problem."
"If you don't want an iPhone 4 don't buy it. If you bought one and you don't like it, bring it back."
takao
Jan 12, 07:45 PM
that they were able to put all that together and package it in a consumer friendly way
let's wait until it is released
personally i found the clicking around in the adress book just for dialing _not_ userfriendly
and the whole internet communicator functionality presented was what ? writing email ?
what exactly is the market for it ? the businessman ? those very likely have already laptops and sophisticated mobile phones/palms etc. and second the features are hardly aiming at them either
will they be able to use the mobile phone as a modem for their laptop ?
who else ? the person who tricks out mobile phones with all kinda gimmick programs etc ? hose rather choose phones with java etc.
i don't know i still who they plan to sell it ... sure there are mac enthusiasts (i would take it too when given as a present) but 10 million within a year without any real range of products ...
not like the apple tv thing would be any better... nice in concept but when your only way of putting content on it is downloading it for high prices on the internet then you essentially end up with a small streaming box for music + photos
or did i miss the step where you could record tv shows and put movies on it from your dvds ?
edit: that aside i'm interesting to trying it out in person... partly because i actually field tested/helped to develop/debug software for a unit,( which i hope i never see again BTW), which had a touchscreen, a built in mobile phone with GPRS (god i hated it), WLAN and camera/barcode scanner
having done this for 2 months i can feel the pains the developers went through during their 2 1/2 years at apple
let's wait until it is released
personally i found the clicking around in the adress book just for dialing _not_ userfriendly
and the whole internet communicator functionality presented was what ? writing email ?
what exactly is the market for it ? the businessman ? those very likely have already laptops and sophisticated mobile phones/palms etc. and second the features are hardly aiming at them either
will they be able to use the mobile phone as a modem for their laptop ?
who else ? the person who tricks out mobile phones with all kinda gimmick programs etc ? hose rather choose phones with java etc.
i don't know i still who they plan to sell it ... sure there are mac enthusiasts (i would take it too when given as a present) but 10 million within a year without any real range of products ...
not like the apple tv thing would be any better... nice in concept but when your only way of putting content on it is downloading it for high prices on the internet then you essentially end up with a small streaming box for music + photos
or did i miss the step where you could record tv shows and put movies on it from your dvds ?
edit: that aside i'm interesting to trying it out in person... partly because i actually field tested/helped to develop/debug software for a unit,( which i hope i never see again BTW), which had a touchscreen, a built in mobile phone with GPRS (god i hated it), WLAN and camera/barcode scanner
having done this for 2 months i can feel the pains the developers went through during their 2 1/2 years at apple
CerealKillers
Mar 17, 12:49 AM
Hahah sweet. This happened to me a couple yrs ago with an iPod touch. I put $75 on my credit card and was gonna pay the rest with cash when I was handed a receipt and the iPod Touch.
juannacho
Apr 26, 11:07 AM
Am I missing something totally obvious here? But what's that slot above the earpiece speaker meant to be exactly?
Like I say maybe I missed something as looking at their comparison images they seem to imply the current iPhone 4 has one already?!!?
What gives?
Like I say maybe I missed something as looking at their comparison images they seem to imply the current iPhone 4 has one already?!!?
What gives?
hob
Jan 9, 03:59 PM
Sorry guys. After all that, I got a little lost in myself and made a stupid post.
Sorry sorry sorry!
Sorry sorry sorry!
BWhaler
Jan 9, 12:58 AM
This is a great idea.
eric_n_dfw
Oct 28, 06:00 PM
APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.
old-school
Apr 30, 04:25 AM
The idea of having a slider for changing tabs, having the active tab lighter in color than darker, reminds me of the interface of my LED Machines app
That's interesting. The way you used a capital letter at the start of the sentence reminded me of my new project, available soon etc,,..
That's interesting. The way you used a capital letter at the start of the sentence reminded me of my new project, available soon etc,,..
noservice2001
Aug 1, 01:56 PM
interesting....
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar