GilGrissom
Jul 25, 05:35 AM
Arrrh I've been waiting for one of these for ages! I gave up and got a standard Apple Wireless Mouse a few months back! Arrgh!
I hope they have improved some of the small glitches people have with them, making it generally a nicer product, as I know some people totally hate its guts!
Different colour variations might be interesting, but the laser technology seems a step in the right direction at least, showing they have at least put a bit of thought into it and not just made the standard one with a bluetooth transceiver and batteries.
Heres to hoping its a top notch product!
I'm gonna guess it's gonna be very much a premium mouse on price too!
I hope they have improved some of the small glitches people have with them, making it generally a nicer product, as I know some people totally hate its guts!
Different colour variations might be interesting, but the laser technology seems a step in the right direction at least, showing they have at least put a bit of thought into it and not just made the standard one with a bluetooth transceiver and batteries.
Heres to hoping its a top notch product!
I'm gonna guess it's gonna be very much a premium mouse on price too!
zorinlynx
Apr 14, 03:36 PM
Okay, I just reproduced this problem. After which I rolled my eyes and said "What's the big deal?"
I mean really, this is BEYOND picky. No wonder us Apple users have a reputation for being douchebags.
I hadn't even NOTICED this until now, and now that I have, I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to care. Honestly, if it's a choice between fixing this and putting more development resources into iOS 5, I much prefer the latter.
-Z
EDIT: I wanted to add that I'd rather my app launch faster than for time to be wasted playing a silly animation. Based on how fast the app comes up, that may be what's going on here.
Open a stock app, like Messages or Photos.
Watch the animation, look at how the icons fly off to the edges of the screen and the app you pressed zooms forward from the centre of the screen and into full screen view. That, is the animation for launching an app.
Now try it on, for example, Infinity Blade, Engadget, TUAW, Dead Space, Final Fantasy 3 (basically 99.9% of third party apps). Notice that when you press the app icon, it dulls as normal, but then the app immediately appears on screen. No home screen icons zooming off to the edges of the screen, no app you are loading zooming forward from the centre of the screen to fill the entire viewable area.
Only once the app has been loaded, and is in the memory, can you open/close the app and get the animation as normal.
No doubt you'll say you don't have that on your phone, but there you go.
I mean really, this is BEYOND picky. No wonder us Apple users have a reputation for being douchebags.
I hadn't even NOTICED this until now, and now that I have, I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to care. Honestly, if it's a choice between fixing this and putting more development resources into iOS 5, I much prefer the latter.
-Z
EDIT: I wanted to add that I'd rather my app launch faster than for time to be wasted playing a silly animation. Based on how fast the app comes up, that may be what's going on here.
Open a stock app, like Messages or Photos.
Watch the animation, look at how the icons fly off to the edges of the screen and the app you pressed zooms forward from the centre of the screen and into full screen view. That, is the animation for launching an app.
Now try it on, for example, Infinity Blade, Engadget, TUAW, Dead Space, Final Fantasy 3 (basically 99.9% of third party apps). Notice that when you press the app icon, it dulls as normal, but then the app immediately appears on screen. No home screen icons zooming off to the edges of the screen, no app you are loading zooming forward from the centre of the screen to fill the entire viewable area.
Only once the app has been loaded, and is in the memory, can you open/close the app and get the animation as normal.
No doubt you'll say you don't have that on your phone, but there you go.
HBOC
Jan 25, 11:27 PM
bought a 40D + a tamron 17-35 last week. Sold them both yesterday on FM and bought these today (also bought an OM>EOS adapter (fotodiox), E1 handstrap, Zuiko 28mm 3,5)..
supremedesigner
Jul 30, 08:07 PM
Different topic: Saw dell.com new "interim" website and it have poorly html function. Bah!
yellow
Dec 1, 02:57 PM
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Of course, and I meant that in the 'general sense'. I have long since abandoned the use of Classic on any of my OS X Macs or any of the Macs I support. AppleTalk is so deprecated that I can hardly believe that anyone will be able to use it much longer. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if it was completely absent from 10.5.
As for the AFP needing AppleTalk, I'm glad you linked the correction. As AppleTalk was an Apple prorietary networking protocol and more and more places were dropping support for AppleTalk routing between subnets/routers (it is PROHIBITIVELY expensive for routers that will pass AT traffic) AFP moved to AFPoverTCP.
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
Of course, and I meant that in the 'general sense'. I have long since abandoned the use of Classic on any of my OS X Macs or any of the Macs I support. AppleTalk is so deprecated that I can hardly believe that anyone will be able to use it much longer. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if it was completely absent from 10.5.
As for the AFP needing AppleTalk, I'm glad you linked the correction. As AppleTalk was an Apple prorietary networking protocol and more and more places were dropping support for AppleTalk routing between subnets/routers (it is PROHIBITIVELY expensive for routers that will pass AT traffic) AFP moved to AFPoverTCP.
I do, and so does anyone who has a classic environment of System 7 and earlier for classic compatibility reasons.
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
Apple Corps
Apr 13, 05:48 PM
Sorry, refuse to see what ? You posted a TechCrunch article which refuted itself. You did not post an engadget story. What am I refusing to see exactly ? I'm reading the links you supplied. Supply links that at least support your position next time, and I won't "refuse to see it" like you say.
Next, your Engadget article was refuted. Hardly justification to propose as fact that apple "envisionned" anything as far as Thunderbolt goes.
I'm not questioning that they played a role, be it major or minor, I'm questioning the importance Chuppa is giving Apple which his choice of "envision". All history of TB points to the contrary. Your engadget article is the first to say that Apple envisionned it and it was quickly refuted.
So again : Citation Needed.
Read the article and links - it is all there - you continue to refuse to see it. As I stated in my earlier post - not getting into who is correct or who has refuted who - just saying info is out there giving Apple credit for pushing / envisioning / whatever the lightpeak approach.
Next, your Engadget article was refuted. Hardly justification to propose as fact that apple "envisionned" anything as far as Thunderbolt goes.
I'm not questioning that they played a role, be it major or minor, I'm questioning the importance Chuppa is giving Apple which his choice of "envision". All history of TB points to the contrary. Your engadget article is the first to say that Apple envisionned it and it was quickly refuted.
So again : Citation Needed.
Read the article and links - it is all there - you continue to refuse to see it. As I stated in my earlier post - not getting into who is correct or who has refuted who - just saying info is out there giving Apple credit for pushing / envisioning / whatever the lightpeak approach.
Xavier
Sep 13, 09:15 PM
This shipped today, 3 weeks for International Shipping though. Ouch
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2692481788_ec23411e7c.jpg
I have this shirt. It does attract quite a bit of attention
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2692481788_ec23411e7c.jpg
I have this shirt. It does attract quite a bit of attention
mjteix
Apr 13, 10:35 AM
Technical issues aside - odds are that Apple would rather sell you a new Mac Pro with Thunderbolt onboard.
That would mean video onboard too. Which would not be completly dumb since the MP also plays the role of the Xserve now, and that some usages don't need a powerful gpu. For those usages that need one (or two), the PCIe slots are there, and the onboard Thunderbolt port(s) could be used as data port(s) only.
The other way, is to release graphics cards including Thunderbolt port(s), and since Apple offers only a couple of them for the MP, it shouldn't be that complicated, especially when future Xeon SB cpus will offer 24/40 PCIe 3.0 lanes per cpu. A 16x PCIe 3.0 slot could accomodate 16x 2.0 lanes for the gpu itself and up to 16x 2.0 lanes for Thunderbolt controllers...
I think that Intel wants Thunderbolt to carry video no matter what, that's, I believe, the reason why they said "no PCIe upgrade card" for existing computers. Someone can probably make a 16x PCIe 2.0 combo card with gpu + Thunderbolt, but the gpu would have to be connected thru only 8x lanes with 4x/8x lanes for the Thunderbolt port(s). Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not... Technically, there's no reason why it can't be done.
In any case, Intel will release Thunderbolt's Developer Kits this quarter, so more technical info will be available, and some questions may be answered.
That would mean video onboard too. Which would not be completly dumb since the MP also plays the role of the Xserve now, and that some usages don't need a powerful gpu. For those usages that need one (or two), the PCIe slots are there, and the onboard Thunderbolt port(s) could be used as data port(s) only.
The other way, is to release graphics cards including Thunderbolt port(s), and since Apple offers only a couple of them for the MP, it shouldn't be that complicated, especially when future Xeon SB cpus will offer 24/40 PCIe 3.0 lanes per cpu. A 16x PCIe 3.0 slot could accomodate 16x 2.0 lanes for the gpu itself and up to 16x 2.0 lanes for Thunderbolt controllers...
I think that Intel wants Thunderbolt to carry video no matter what, that's, I believe, the reason why they said "no PCIe upgrade card" for existing computers. Someone can probably make a 16x PCIe 2.0 combo card with gpu + Thunderbolt, but the gpu would have to be connected thru only 8x lanes with 4x/8x lanes for the Thunderbolt port(s). Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not... Technically, there's no reason why it can't be done.
In any case, Intel will release Thunderbolt's Developer Kits this quarter, so more technical info will be available, and some questions may be answered.
MacGeek1993
Apr 22, 10:04 AM
I dont know of any wireless phone that could support real 4G speeds. Besides on a mobile device, do I really need more than 20mb down, 5 up? Thats already faster than my cable modem lol.
I think Verizon 4G is useful at times. YouTube videos load quick on it, and the upload speed is 5x as fast as my cable modem speed :P. My Verizon 4G speed is about 15 down, 35 up. When YouTube videos stop and freeze while loading and you have to wait, you somewhat wish you had the 4G speed.
I think Verizon 4G is useful at times. YouTube videos load quick on it, and the upload speed is 5x as fast as my cable modem speed :P. My Verizon 4G speed is about 15 down, 35 up. When YouTube videos stop and freeze while loading and you have to wait, you somewhat wish you had the 4G speed.
SubaruNation555
Oct 31, 10:36 AM
24" HP ZR24w or 24" Dell UltraSharp U2410 to replace my 20" Cinema Display, still haven't decided. The HP is significantly cheaper but the Dell seems to have the edge in color accuracy. I guess you get what you pay for.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1230/5139586760_7d2fea3ddd_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1230/5139586760_7d2fea3ddd_b.jpg
Tones2
Apr 22, 10:26 AM
No thanks.
4.0 max whilst retaining current size. It's a phone not a tablet.
Have you used a 4.3" phone. They don't seem that much physically bigger but the screen size is awesome! Apple keeps getting squeezed with adding new technology because of the size limitations of the phone. Giving us a slightly bigger size with the advantage of a bigger screen size AND more components seems like an excellent tradeoff.
Yeah - I know if will never happen because SJ is compulsive obsessive with never making things bigger.
Tony
4.0 max whilst retaining current size. It's a phone not a tablet.
Have you used a 4.3" phone. They don't seem that much physically bigger but the screen size is awesome! Apple keeps getting squeezed with adding new technology because of the size limitations of the phone. Giving us a slightly bigger size with the advantage of a bigger screen size AND more components seems like an excellent tradeoff.
Yeah - I know if will never happen because SJ is compulsive obsessive with never making things bigger.
Tony
rjohnstone
Apr 22, 03:50 PM
F700, announced 2007 feb, released dec.
iPhone, announced 2007 jan, released june.
it's clear that the f700 is also a copycat....
For the love of.... it takes longer than 30 days to develop and bring a product to market.
NOBODY saw what the iPhone was going to look like prior to it's announcement/unveiling in Jan 2007.
A lot of people, including Apple, saw the design concepts from LG back in 2006.
At best, Samsung copied LG, not Apple.
iPhone, announced 2007 jan, released june.
it's clear that the f700 is also a copycat....
For the love of.... it takes longer than 30 days to develop and bring a product to market.
NOBODY saw what the iPhone was going to look like prior to it's announcement/unveiling in Jan 2007.
A lot of people, including Apple, saw the design concepts from LG back in 2006.
At best, Samsung copied LG, not Apple.
jessica.
Jan 25, 09:37 PM
Pretty sure there are worse things you could keep in your basement. :D
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/The-Silence-of-the-Lambs-horror-movies-77528_1024_768.jpg
I just bought some super cute cupcake liners in both brown and brown polka dot. :)
http://ny-image1.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.210444089.jpg
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/The-Silence-of-the-Lambs-horror-movies-77528_1024_768.jpg
I just bought some super cute cupcake liners in both brown and brown polka dot. :)
http://ny-image1.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.210444089.jpg
rnelan7
Dec 4, 06:27 PM
hahahah I probably have more experience with guns then most people, I own 9 guns of my own already.
a .223 ruger mini 14 a couple .22's and a couple shotguns a .22 pistol.. and a couple others...
I don't doubt you, but in honor of A Christmas Story I had to say it :D
a .223 ruger mini 14 a couple .22's and a couple shotguns a .22 pistol.. and a couple others...
I don't doubt you, but in honor of A Christmas Story I had to say it :D
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 19, 05:05 PM
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
spiderman0616
Apr 28, 11:22 AM
I'm honestly surprised by a lot of you. The whole "no single android phone outsells the iPhone!" argument, is foolish and weak. It's a platform war. You basically get ONE CHOICE with the iPhone. Now it's a great choice, but of course it's going to be a top seller as a result. There are so many good Android choices out there that a single model isn't going to dwarf the others. Since there are, you know, options? As a platform it seems iOS is getting whooped on. Does that not register, or are people that much in denial?
Now myself, I like my iPhone, but come on...in this case we are talking about platforms...So weird...
It's a platform war, but not in the way that a lot of people think it is. Developers are making a lot more money on iOS because it has a lot more users and those users tend to buy things. Therefore, those users are going to get the developers' attention first. That may change later, but for now, it's not going to.
The marketshare game does not work in this battle, at least not for now. And it's not an even fight in more ways than one. When Apple goes to all carriers (it will in time) in the US, this is all going to look a lot different. Android may still "win" in terms of sheer numbers, but it will be a much closer fight, and iPhone will still have the mind share.
I knew a lot of my friends and family would go iPhone once it went to Verizon, but I am really really surprised to find out that it's a lot more people than I even thought. One friend of mine JUST got her Droid 2 a few months ago and dumped it immediately for the Verizon iPhone the other day. She was a self proclaimed "Android person".
People who settled for Android are changing their tune. This is going to get really interesting.
Now myself, I like my iPhone, but come on...in this case we are talking about platforms...So weird...
It's a platform war, but not in the way that a lot of people think it is. Developers are making a lot more money on iOS because it has a lot more users and those users tend to buy things. Therefore, those users are going to get the developers' attention first. That may change later, but for now, it's not going to.
The marketshare game does not work in this battle, at least not for now. And it's not an even fight in more ways than one. When Apple goes to all carriers (it will in time) in the US, this is all going to look a lot different. Android may still "win" in terms of sheer numbers, but it will be a much closer fight, and iPhone will still have the mind share.
I knew a lot of my friends and family would go iPhone once it went to Verizon, but I am really really surprised to find out that it's a lot more people than I even thought. One friend of mine JUST got her Droid 2 a few months ago and dumped it immediately for the Verizon iPhone the other day. She was a self proclaimed "Android person".
People who settled for Android are changing their tune. This is going to get really interesting.
BrianMojo
Jul 25, 12:35 PM
Here's a radical suggestion, very unlikely to be implemented, but maybe interesting.
The iPod has a screen on the front which displays the controls, but the touch/presence/motion sensitive sensor is on the back. Since the controls are on the back, your view of the screen isn't obscured by your finger tapping on it.
But how do you see exactly where your fingers are? Simple - the "None Touch" sensor detects where your fingers are, and superimposes a representation of their position on the screen - it's almost like a transparent iPod, where your fingers behind the iPod are shown on the screen in front.
Benefits
- your fingers aren't obscuring your view of the screen
- you're not smudging or scratching the screen by tapping on it.
Disadvantages
Sonam Kapoor In I Hate Luv
I hate surprises!
The iPod has a screen on the front which displays the controls, but the touch/presence/motion sensitive sensor is on the back. Since the controls are on the back, your view of the screen isn't obscured by your finger tapping on it.
But how do you see exactly where your fingers are? Simple - the "None Touch" sensor detects where your fingers are, and superimposes a representation of their position on the screen - it's almost like a transparent iPod, where your fingers behind the iPod are shown on the screen in front.
Benefits
- your fingers aren't obscuring your view of the screen
- you're not smudging or scratching the screen by tapping on it.
Disadvantages
Mac7
Apr 13, 07:24 PM
Hope it comes soon. Before my return elgibility runs out.
mambodancer
Jul 25, 07:53 AM
On Anandtech (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3475)
Apple just posted the announcement on their site. I've got credit card in hand and my order is on the way!!!
Apple just posted the announcement on their site. I've got credit card in hand and my order is on the way!!!
OceanView
Mar 16, 10:56 AM
I have a white 32gb wifi in a sealed box that I want to exchange for a 32GB black AT&T. If anyone wants to trade plus difference in cash, let me know.
Hawkeye411
Jun 6, 09:03 AM
How long after you make a purchase does the App Store remember your password so you don't have to enter it again? I presume that's what happened in this case.
It didn't take my 10 year old son long to figure out that he could continue to download apps after asking me to download one for him. Now, if he wants a free app, I wait for it to finish downloading and then i log out of my account before i hand his touch back to him! :mad:
It didn't take my 10 year old son long to figure out that he could continue to download apps after asking me to download one for him. Now, if he wants a free app, I wait for it to finish downloading and then i log out of my account before i hand his touch back to him! :mad:
Matt-M
Apr 28, 05:08 PM
Maybe we should just grab a couple of iphones for...ahem....testing purposes! :)
I have high-precision digital calipers, but only a black phone.
The only reason I found this interesting is the why. If the white phone is thicker, why is it thicker? Different camera vendor (since that's the thickest internal component)? Insulation on the antenna? Different battery? Thicker paint coating to prevent light leaks?
I couldn't care less about the fact that it might be thicker, only the reason. Alas, I don't think it is. Maybe only enough for the paint explanation.
I have high-precision digital calipers, but only a black phone.
The only reason I found this interesting is the why. If the white phone is thicker, why is it thicker? Different camera vendor (since that's the thickest internal component)? Insulation on the antenna? Different battery? Thicker paint coating to prevent light leaks?
I couldn't care less about the fact that it might be thicker, only the reason. Alas, I don't think it is. Maybe only enough for the paint explanation.
roadbloc
Apr 14, 03:30 AM
A typo.
MacRumors
Apr 22, 04:11 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/22/iphone-5-details-3-7-inch-screen-home-button-with-gesture-area/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/22/171122-iPhone5_mockup.jpeg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/22/171122-iPhone5_mockup.jpeg
