gugy
May 3, 11:35 AM
I love the 2 30" external display support. Hopefully Thunderbolt will be able to do the same on the MacBook Pro.
praetorian909
Sep 13, 07:30 AM
can someone tell me how to do that quick scroll thingee? i get it sorta randomly.
I just tried it, it seems to trigger when I make 2 or 3 revolutions on the scroll week. I'm already liking it a lot, a very welcomed new feature :)
I just tried it, it seems to trigger when I make 2 or 3 revolutions on the scroll week. I'm already liking it a lot, a very welcomed new feature :)
ksz
Jul 14, 09:40 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
If you raised the clock speed of NetBurst-based Pentium 4s (or Pentium Ds) to 4GHz, you would still not achieve the same performance as today's Conroe at 2.13GHz. Clock speed alone is not an accurate gauge of performance.
Because of increasing problems with heat density, clock speeds haven't been rising at their historical rates. A kind of brick wall was hit when the semiconductor industry moved to 90nm. At those dimensions a series of unexpected problems plagued ramp and ushered a change away from blindly raising clock speeds towards more functionality and more optimized functionality at more manageable clock speeds.
Clock speeds will hit 4GHz and keep rising, but not at the rate we have been accustomed to. But as the Core 2 benchmarks show, Intel has intelligently redesigned the processor to achieve significant speed improvements at existing clock speeds.
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
If you raised the clock speed of NetBurst-based Pentium 4s (or Pentium Ds) to 4GHz, you would still not achieve the same performance as today's Conroe at 2.13GHz. Clock speed alone is not an accurate gauge of performance.
Because of increasing problems with heat density, clock speeds haven't been rising at their historical rates. A kind of brick wall was hit when the semiconductor industry moved to 90nm. At those dimensions a series of unexpected problems plagued ramp and ushered a change away from blindly raising clock speeds towards more functionality and more optimized functionality at more manageable clock speeds.
Clock speeds will hit 4GHz and keep rising, but not at the rate we have been accustomed to. But as the Core 2 benchmarks show, Intel has intelligently redesigned the processor to achieve significant speed improvements at existing clock speeds.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
wywern209
Apr 25, 06:44 PM
ehh, i don't think much will change from the unibody we have this yr. there might be some infusion of liquid metal for sturdiness but besides that, i don't think much will change. on the other hand, USB3 will be standard next yr and maybe some stuff will be out to take advantage of lightpeak. and i seriously doubt that we will have super highres stuff next year for the laptops. I anticipate higher res ACDs but nothing more.
rtdunham
Mar 23, 06:10 PM
... Honestly, do you think someone who is Drunk is going to be checking the app for the checkpoints? Its just an excuse to get rid of these apps from the store and increase revenue (by ticketing more DUI drivers)....
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
milo
Sep 5, 06:02 PM
Yes I did milo.And it's a fine rendition :)
Only thing is one still has to connect some kind of A/V cables to the TV..
Think about that concept.
I'll think about it. I think it's covered by "video to tv via dvi>hdmi cable for hdtv or analogue connection for sdtv". Which you obviously missed?
Try looking at the pic again. And read the stuff. All of it.
Only thing is one still has to connect some kind of A/V cables to the TV..
Think about that concept.
I'll think about it. I think it's covered by "video to tv via dvi>hdmi cable for hdtv or analogue connection for sdtv". Which you obviously missed?
Try looking at the pic again. And read the stuff. All of it.
mwayne85
Apr 22, 12:54 PM
So I'm guessing the chances of them putting AMD graphics in one of these models is practically zero?
lvlarkkoenen
Apr 28, 03:46 PM
I bet ballmers goal is $5.99 billion profit next quarter.
:rolleyes:
In the quarter where Apple will still be selling alot of iPads? And release a new iMac? I highly doubt that would be enough. Let's not forget about Back to School either.
Also, does anyone think Apple will soon be forced to bail Microsoft out? ;)
:rolleyes:
In the quarter where Apple will still be selling alot of iPads? And release a new iMac? I highly doubt that would be enough. Let's not forget about Back to School either.
Also, does anyone think Apple will soon be forced to bail Microsoft out? ;)
ChrisA
Jan 11, 04:08 PM
...
��We��ve seen significant advancements in device and social network adoption, placing a bulls-eye on the platforms and services users are embracing the most. These platforms and services have become very popular in a short amount of time,..
TRANSLATION: Someday, maybe in the future if this trend continues and Apple screws up, you might need our product.
The ONLY reason PC user find this crap usful id because Microsoft screwed up the way security is handled and users require a band aid type patch
Apple did make a few errors, they could do better. For example thy should not allow most "normal" programs to run on an admin account. iTunes and Safari and iPhoto and so on should simply refuse to run and put up a box teling you to log into a user account. Forcing user to run in non-admin accounts would make most Trojans ineffective. There is muh more that could be done.
��We��ve seen significant advancements in device and social network adoption, placing a bulls-eye on the platforms and services users are embracing the most. These platforms and services have become very popular in a short amount of time,..
TRANSLATION: Someday, maybe in the future if this trend continues and Apple screws up, you might need our product.
The ONLY reason PC user find this crap usful id because Microsoft screwed up the way security is handled and users require a band aid type patch
Apple did make a few errors, they could do better. For example thy should not allow most "normal" programs to run on an admin account. iTunes and Safari and iPhoto and so on should simply refuse to run and put up a box teling you to log into a user account. Forcing user to run in non-admin accounts would make most Trojans ineffective. There is muh more that could be done.
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 23, 03:50 PM
The theory that OS X is completely secure is equally nonsense.
Don't attempt to use logic or scientific evidence around here zer0sum. Fanboys have never heard of it. They're too busy sticking their heads in the sand and saying it could never happen to them. After all, Apple doesn't have security updates because they feel there is a "need" for them (after all, OSX is completely secure and it couldn't happen here!), but just to make people from the Windows world 'feel better' by saying they've done something once in a blue moon. ;) :D
Don't attempt to use logic or scientific evidence around here zer0sum. Fanboys have never heard of it. They're too busy sticking their heads in the sand and saying it could never happen to them. After all, Apple doesn't have security updates because they feel there is a "need" for them (after all, OSX is completely secure and it couldn't happen here!), but just to make people from the Windows world 'feel better' by saying they've done something once in a blue moon. ;) :D
SilianRail
May 1, 03:56 AM
Crap... I just ordered a 27" iMac from store.apple.com Friday morning. It hasn't shipped yet as i did some custom changes. I am going to call in the morning to see if I can hopefully cancel the order. I also purchased a 27" Cinema Display but that has already shipped. And doesn't look like it is in this upgrade round.If only there was a buyer's guide for Apple products on this very website. :rolleyes:
johndoejohndoes
Apr 25, 04:17 PM
This is tight...but please....PLEASE!!! Have a ODD.
Cameront9
Aug 23, 05:44 PM
I agree as it is the only common sense system, but the argument is negated by the patent. That was for a portable music device with Hierarchal menu display/navigation system, (HFS is a file system Apple has used and not used in Creative's players).
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1. Apple didn't want to take any risks and settled. Good all round as far as I can see, even if I do agree it is a stupid patent award.
Oh, I agree that Apple did the sensible thing. But it just makes me angry that they should be in the situation in the first place.
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1. Apple didn't want to take any risks and settled. Good all round as far as I can see, even if I do agree it is a stupid patent award.
Oh, I agree that Apple did the sensible thing. But it just makes me angry that they should be in the situation in the first place.
Vegasman
Mar 30, 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegasman
Examples of uses (Dvorak in his references to "killer app"):
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
What I understood is that the word "App" by itself is not the reason for the lawsuit, but the term "App Store" is; both words used together. .
Correct. I was simply providing additional evidence that "app" was used before the App Store. Something the poster I was replying to was saying and something a lot of other posters are claiming is not true.
Originally Posted by Vegasman
Examples of uses (Dvorak in his references to "killer app"):
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
What I understood is that the word "App" by itself is not the reason for the lawsuit, but the term "App Store" is; both words used together. .
Correct. I was simply providing additional evidence that "app" was used before the App Store. Something the poster I was replying to was saying and something a lot of other posters are claiming is not true.
rotobadger
Mar 30, 11:34 AM
Microsoft is suing homebuilders for offering "Windows" in their homes. Instead, they need to refer to them as "transparent viewing portals".
ngenerator
Mar 29, 11:17 AM
Seems likely :rolleyes:
darwen
Oct 13, 12:07 AM
I am sure this has been said but I wanted to get my post in...
Looks cool, just hope the $10 donation does not mean it will cost more. Red is not THAT great.
Looks cool, just hope the $10 donation does not mean it will cost more. Red is not THAT great.
caspersoong
Apr 22, 05:06 AM
Useless to me if it is just for iTunes purchases. Please focus on more important things, Apple.
freiheit
Sep 9, 05:20 PM
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm at a point (thanks to apps like Parallels) where I am ready to replace both my PC and my G5 PowerMac with a single system. I can't really justify the cost of the MacPro (even the low-end is over $2K) but if I'm to be running both Mac and Windows simultaneously, 4GB RAM capacity in the iMac would be very much appreciated. 3GB would do, but the cost difference between the 2GB and 3GB option right now is extremely high ($575 more to go from 2GB to 3GB, not $575 total for 3GB) which puts the 17" iMac right in the price range of the low-end MacPro.
Did anyone else also notice the verbage in the "how much RAM do I need" section on the iMac store page that says you can choose a "one SO-DIMM" option to keep 2 slots free? Why do I not see this as an option? There's 2x512MB, 2x1GB and 1x2GB+1x1GB.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm at a point (thanks to apps like Parallels) where I am ready to replace both my PC and my G5 PowerMac with a single system. I can't really justify the cost of the MacPro (even the low-end is over $2K) but if I'm to be running both Mac and Windows simultaneously, 4GB RAM capacity in the iMac would be very much appreciated. 3GB would do, but the cost difference between the 2GB and 3GB option right now is extremely high ($575 more to go from 2GB to 3GB, not $575 total for 3GB) which puts the 17" iMac right in the price range of the low-end MacPro.
Did anyone else also notice the verbage in the "how much RAM do I need" section on the iMac store page that says you can choose a "one SO-DIMM" option to keep 2 slots free? Why do I not see this as an option? There's 2x512MB, 2x1GB and 1x2GB+1x1GB.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 10:33 PM
How sleazy of you, Apple.
Almost like stabbing in the back.
Not nice, Apple, not nice.
You know what's sleazy? Working with a partner while secretly copying that partner's work to create a competing product.
Microsoft did this to Apple with Windows. Google did this to Apple with Android. And Samsung did this with their phone/tablet designs and their UI overlay.
Almost like stabbing in the back.
Not nice, Apple, not nice.
You know what's sleazy? Working with a partner while secretly copying that partner's work to create a competing product.
Microsoft did this to Apple with Windows. Google did this to Apple with Android. And Samsung did this with their phone/tablet designs and their UI overlay.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 01:10 AM
You do realize it's easy for me to prove malice on your braking? Your previous behavior just shows clear evidence. At those high speeds if she would have hit you would have flown out your window or left with a really bad bruise from seatbelt. Eiher way at that point, I could ask that you be subject to a lie detector due to gravity of the possible incident.
You are 16, reckless and crap driver. Stay off the road.
Listen you're not going to beat me with legal antics. My mother is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan. I've grown up in legal libraries and in courtrooms watching her. You're lie detector statement is total BS. Lie detectors are not admissible in a court of law; also a court can not compel someone to take a polygraph. My previous history would be easily disputed. There were no witnesses present (besides my mother) when I was highbeaming her and laying on my horn. There were however cars present when she brakechecked me. There was one car present when I brakechecked her, but not when I cut her off. The simple fact is that I plan these things out in order to reduce my legal exposure, and increase the other person's legal exposure, in case there were to be an accident/law suit.
Go ahead and call me twisted for giving people what they deserve. It amazes me how such little things tick people off.
-Don
You are 16, reckless and crap driver. Stay off the road.
Listen you're not going to beat me with legal antics. My mother is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan. I've grown up in legal libraries and in courtrooms watching her. You're lie detector statement is total BS. Lie detectors are not admissible in a court of law; also a court can not compel someone to take a polygraph. My previous history would be easily disputed. There were no witnesses present (besides my mother) when I was highbeaming her and laying on my horn. There were however cars present when she brakechecked me. There was one car present when I brakechecked her, but not when I cut her off. The simple fact is that I plan these things out in order to reduce my legal exposure, and increase the other person's legal exposure, in case there were to be an accident/law suit.
Go ahead and call me twisted for giving people what they deserve. It amazes me how such little things tick people off.
-Don
az988
Apr 22, 12:21 PM
I'd take the 13" MBP screen over the 13 MBA screen every day of the week, much better quality in every way apart from the small resolution increase. The MBA screen is cheap and nasty (yes I owned both, sold the 2010 Air to buy the 2011 13 MBP)
what's the difference in the screen specs? i saw the air's screen at the apple store and it looked pretty nice to me
what's the difference in the screen specs? i saw the air's screen at the apple store and it looked pretty nice to me
kas23
Apr 19, 07:09 AM
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
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.
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.