mcmlxix
Apr 20, 01:13 PM
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
I've never used Facebook
-signed, Not Everyone
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
I've never used Facebook
-signed, Not Everyone
baleensavage
Apr 20, 11:29 AM
I'm personally of the opinion that anyone that thinks they have any privacy in this digital age is lying to themselves. There is no privacy, every single time you do anything on the internet or cell phone, some device somewhere is keeping a log of it. This is just one more way. But like other people mentioned, unless you're a criminal or the victim of a highly sophisticated stalker, then no one really cares about your private data.
With that said, if Apple is in fact storing location data when you specifically turn location services off on your iPhone, then this is a big problem that needs to be remedied. Their TOS specifically states that they are not collecting this data when you turn location services off and that is a flat out lie.
With that said, if Apple is in fact storing location data when you specifically turn location services off on your iPhone, then this is a big problem that needs to be remedied. Their TOS specifically states that they are not collecting this data when you turn location services off and that is a flat out lie.
iRobby
Mar 23, 06:47 PM
It's true what they say "Mac's just work."
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
Eraserhead
Apr 18, 11:51 AM
So the US doesnt even have paid holiday from work?
Swarmlord
Oct 12, 01:02 PM
Please CAN IT!
CAN IT!
My god we cant talk about anything on this board without the core 2 duo macbook/pro crew coming to mess up a thread THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LAPTOP UPDATES
CAN IT!
:mad:
Thanks. It had to be said.
CAN IT!
My god we cant talk about anything on this board without the core 2 duo macbook/pro crew coming to mess up a thread THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LAPTOP UPDATES
CAN IT!
:mad:
Thanks. It had to be said.
toddybody
Mar 22, 03:12 PM
Now I can rid myself of my 27" i7 2009 iMac.
Things that I would see/would like to see on the new iMacs:
- Thunderbolt (2 ports would be nice)
- Target DisplayPort Mode with HDMI + HDMI audio in, without needing to fully power up the entire computer (and a toggle that doesn't require an Apple keyboard)
- USB3 (I know Intel isn't natively putting USB3 on their chipsets until Ivy Bridge, but Apple could do the right thing and add this)
- get rid of the internal speakers as an option for more cooling
- at least a Radeon 6850 or GeForce GTX 560 Ti (preferably the nVidia card for CUDA/HW accelerated stuff) with at least 1 (2 please) GB of GDDR5 (I'm still boggled why they even offered a 256MB 6490 on the MacBook Pro)
- easily accessible 2.5" port for an SSD (doubt it)
- i7-2600 at the high end (Apple won't sell the K version, unless they go nuts and allow overclocking)
- a side mounted USB port or 2 would be nice, hell, more USB ports period (6-8) would be nice
- a second Firewire 800 (or 1600 if Apple is feeling frisky) port
- matte screen option (this, like the 2.5" bay, has a snowballs' chance in hell)
- Blu-Ray (see my note on the matte screen)
Wonder if Apple will allow for the full 32GB support that the Sandy Bridge processors can fully take, and the DDR3-1600 speeds, since they are limiting both on the MacBook Pros at the moment.
Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
Things that I would see/would like to see on the new iMacs:
- Thunderbolt (2 ports would be nice)
- Target DisplayPort Mode with HDMI + HDMI audio in, without needing to fully power up the entire computer (and a toggle that doesn't require an Apple keyboard)
- USB3 (I know Intel isn't natively putting USB3 on their chipsets until Ivy Bridge, but Apple could do the right thing and add this)
- get rid of the internal speakers as an option for more cooling
- at least a Radeon 6850 or GeForce GTX 560 Ti (preferably the nVidia card for CUDA/HW accelerated stuff) with at least 1 (2 please) GB of GDDR5 (I'm still boggled why they even offered a 256MB 6490 on the MacBook Pro)
- easily accessible 2.5" port for an SSD (doubt it)
- i7-2600 at the high end (Apple won't sell the K version, unless they go nuts and allow overclocking)
- a side mounted USB port or 2 would be nice, hell, more USB ports period (6-8) would be nice
- a second Firewire 800 (or 1600 if Apple is feeling frisky) port
- matte screen option (this, like the 2.5" bay, has a snowballs' chance in hell)
- Blu-Ray (see my note on the matte screen)
Wonder if Apple will allow for the full 32GB support that the Sandy Bridge processors can fully take, and the DDR3-1600 speeds, since they are limiting both on the MacBook Pros at the moment.
Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
daneoni
Apr 19, 07:16 AM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
You might be willing to walk away from $5.7 billion, face an even bigger lawsuit that you're all but certain to lose and become known in the industry as 'that guy who breaches contracts because of a legal dispute' but i doubt Samsung are.
You might be willing to walk away from $5.7 billion, face an even bigger lawsuit that you're all but certain to lose and become known in the industry as 'that guy who breaches contracts because of a legal dispute' but i doubt Samsung are.
Eggtastic
Apr 25, 01:50 PM
not cool. i was hoping to sell my 06' MBP to upgrade to hopefully an updated MBA line. but now this means i have to wait more...
Techobo
Sep 12, 02:48 PM
Boo, where's my 16:9?
OneMammoth
Mar 30, 01:21 PM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
"Windows" is not the definition of the thing itself, as "App Store" ;)
"Windows" is not the definition of the thing itself, as "App Store" ;)
Sabenth
Aug 23, 05:31 PM
So dose this mean ms can sue apple if they decided to use wifi in ipods ????
iRun26.2
Apr 26, 06:49 AM
I don't question the gaming issue, I just wonder what percentage of MBP buyers would not buy because of the Intel graphics. My uneducated guess would be a very small percentage. Remember, Apple caters to the average consumer, not the geeks.
That may be true but Apple does have the reputation of being 'a cut above the rest' when it comes to video and graphics.
That may be true but Apple does have the reputation of being 'a cut above the rest' when it comes to video and graphics.
Slix
Apr 25, 01:07 PM
Awesome. I can't wait to see it.
ghostlyorb
Apr 29, 07:29 AM
Go apple!
thworple
Oct 27, 09:52 AM
Dude, it's a MacWorld convention, not an environmental love-in. GP needs to get their own convention. They were on private property - the conf organizers have the right to do what they want. Never mind their rights, huh?
Hmmmm, so what you're saying is that a quiet protest (which as an eye-witness I can say this was!!) about a subject they feel strongly about isn't allowed at certain conventions because of the political orientation of the people in charge.
The whole point of the MacExpo is to show the services that Apple and its Third-Party agents can supply to the public. I don't see what the harm is in advertising what they DON'T offer (ie:- in the opinion of Greenpeace - a sound environmental agenda) at the same time.
I'm not going to side with any particular viewpoint about Apple's "green policy" here, as I simply have not read enough about it to convey an honest and balanced opinion. however I do feel that it is within Greenpeace's right to advertise the issues they feel strongly about in an orderly manner (which as far as I'm concerned they did on Thursday!).
Hmmmm, so what you're saying is that a quiet protest (which as an eye-witness I can say this was!!) about a subject they feel strongly about isn't allowed at certain conventions because of the political orientation of the people in charge.
The whole point of the MacExpo is to show the services that Apple and its Third-Party agents can supply to the public. I don't see what the harm is in advertising what they DON'T offer (ie:- in the opinion of Greenpeace - a sound environmental agenda) at the same time.
I'm not going to side with any particular viewpoint about Apple's "green policy" here, as I simply have not read enough about it to convey an honest and balanced opinion. however I do feel that it is within Greenpeace's right to advertise the issues they feel strongly about in an orderly manner (which as far as I'm concerned they did on Thursday!).
the vj
Apr 20, 11:29 AM
Now Wall Mart knows where I am!!! :eek:
Who cares! interesting data but unless you are a celebrity or some sort of important figure the rest is only based on your ego and the typical "American culture paranoia".
Get real, no one in the work cares where you are, they all know you are behind your mac downloading porn.
Who cares! interesting data but unless you are a celebrity or some sort of important figure the rest is only based on your ego and the typical "American culture paranoia".
Get real, no one in the work cares where you are, they all know you are behind your mac downloading porn.
toddybody
Apr 30, 08:06 PM
not as cpu/gpu demanding
Compared to what?
Its MUCH more "cpu/gpu" demanding than say
New York City, New York,
new york skyline night.
Compared to what?
Its MUCH more "cpu/gpu" demanding than say
thworple
Oct 27, 10:25 AM
I'm sorry, what part of 'private property' don't you people understand?
They weren't trespassing or anything like that!!! Its not like they wandered onto someone's back yard and started selling lemonade from a small stand without permission.
They had purchased a small stall there and went about their business handing out leaflets highlighting their concerns at Apple's environmental policy, as well as giving people some tasty Organic Apples (which many, myself included, lapped up ;) ).
Sure, they wandered away from their stall to the entrance to hand out leaflets, but so did half or dozen or so other stallholders. The fact remains that I haven't heard of anyone else being ejected because of this. And it makes you concerned that they were singled out because of the message they were trying to convey.
I was personally more bothered by the people trying to sell you something you didn't want as soon as you entered the Expo (that and the fact that every time I went to the Google stand they'd run out of sweets! :rolleyes: )
They weren't trespassing or anything like that!!! Its not like they wandered onto someone's back yard and started selling lemonade from a small stand without permission.
They had purchased a small stall there and went about their business handing out leaflets highlighting their concerns at Apple's environmental policy, as well as giving people some tasty Organic Apples (which many, myself included, lapped up ;) ).
Sure, they wandered away from their stall to the entrance to hand out leaflets, but so did half or dozen or so other stallholders. The fact remains that I haven't heard of anyone else being ejected because of this. And it makes you concerned that they were singled out because of the message they were trying to convey.
I was personally more bothered by the people trying to sell you something you didn't want as soon as you entered the Expo (that and the fact that every time I went to the Google stand they'd run out of sweets! :rolleyes: )
cube
May 3, 11:44 AM
As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
You can daisy chain multiple monitors with DisplayPort 1.2, and it has much more bandwidth than a Thunderbolt channel.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
You can daisy chain multiple monitors with DisplayPort 1.2, and it has much more bandwidth than a Thunderbolt channel.
Rocketman
Oct 12, 01:03 PM
You think Mac fanboys are intense, Oprah fangirls are radically intense and a couple of orders of magnitude more numerous. The demographics of the audience tells the story of the "heartstrings" decision to support a charity targeted to women and children.
As for why release it on TV and "risk" a leak (which has happened obviously)? It's simple. The TV audience is vast. The Orpah watchers are MOTIVATED and spenders.
I suspect Apple needs to skew their demo to blacks, females, and people who spend more time on the TV than the internet.
Preparing for a major couch potato release I suspect.
The blurb even ends saying so.
Rocketman
As for why release it on TV and "risk" a leak (which has happened obviously)? It's simple. The TV audience is vast. The Orpah watchers are MOTIVATED and spenders.
I suspect Apple needs to skew their demo to blacks, females, and people who spend more time on the TV than the internet.
Preparing for a major couch potato release I suspect.
The blurb even ends saying so.
Rocketman
skunk
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
So does a centipede. :oThey would if they had a hundred legs...
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
~Shard~
Sep 13, 09:23 PM
Shard,
Didn't you hear! The new Apple phone is powered by the newly designed low-power embedded G5 chip.
G5 power phones next Tuesday! Woo Hoo!:D :D :D :eek: :confused:
:eek: I had no idea! Thanks for the insight my friend! :D ;)
Didn't you hear! The new Apple phone is powered by the newly designed low-power embedded G5 chip.
G5 power phones next Tuesday! Woo Hoo!:D :D :D :eek: :confused:
:eek: I had no idea! Thanks for the insight my friend! :D ;)
Macginger
Mar 22, 01:24 PM
I want to know where to get a list of products that hook onto Thunderbolt.
Rocketman
google thunderbolt and you'll find it, or at least what people are planning on bringing out but it's out there :cool:
ok did it for you :)
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
Rocketman
google thunderbolt and you'll find it, or at least what people are planning on bringing out but it's out there :cool:
ok did it for you :)
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
