lilo777
Apr 5, 02:20 PM
It's: "Do not buy iPhone. Go with Android." That's how I see it. Companies like Toyota will have no choice but to double their efforts in serving Android users.
-aggie-
May 4, 05:28 AM
DP is fine for a leader....for this first round. I'm not too sure about this splitting up though.
0815
Apr 25, 10:33 AM
Since only I can access the info, who cares?
This is not a real issue. Ridiculous.
Guess the Apple Haters care ... since they can't attack the iOS on any other grounds they have to either make up funny arguments or overblow every tiny none-issue (and leave out the facts how it looks on their favorite platform).
And of course the press cares since there is a new thing where they can attach their favorite 'gate' to.
This is not a real issue. Ridiculous.
Guess the Apple Haters care ... since they can't attack the iOS on any other grounds they have to either make up funny arguments or overblow every tiny none-issue (and leave out the facts how it looks on their favorite platform).
And of course the press cares since there is a new thing where they can attach their favorite 'gate' to.
marvel2
Nov 13, 03:19 PM
Which leaves the only concern left being clarify of calls.
I went on a drive on my lunch and received my first call through the TomTom kit today. What I can say is that the speaker clarity was good and the mic picked up my voice suprisingly good for the distance I had it from the driver's seat. I had it mounted on the windshield. However, I did find myself talking a bit louder than normal to ensure the mic would pick up everything, and it did. Throughout the conversation, the person I was talking on the phone with never asked me to repeat anything. I was able to carry on a conversation throughout my drive as I normally would in my car - hands free :p
The speaker volume on the TomTom kit leaves a little bit to desired in my opinion. I found myself constantly moving the volume switch up, but wasn't sure it was on its highest setting because it isn't a 'dial' type adjuster. Although the speaker was loud enough to hear, I wanted it a little louder. However, this may be because my car does not dampen road noise very well. I'm sure your sedan will be much quiter and the speaker volume will be adequate. The speaker quality is clear enough to hold a conversation.
I went on a drive on my lunch and received my first call through the TomTom kit today. What I can say is that the speaker clarity was good and the mic picked up my voice suprisingly good for the distance I had it from the driver's seat. I had it mounted on the windshield. However, I did find myself talking a bit louder than normal to ensure the mic would pick up everything, and it did. Throughout the conversation, the person I was talking on the phone with never asked me to repeat anything. I was able to carry on a conversation throughout my drive as I normally would in my car - hands free :p
The speaker volume on the TomTom kit leaves a little bit to desired in my opinion. I found myself constantly moving the volume switch up, but wasn't sure it was on its highest setting because it isn't a 'dial' type adjuster. Although the speaker was loud enough to hear, I wanted it a little louder. However, this may be because my car does not dampen road noise very well. I'm sure your sedan will be much quiter and the speaker volume will be adequate. The speaker quality is clear enough to hold a conversation.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:15 AM
Yes there are, android are the market leaders(by volume) ~33%, Apple are third after Nokia with ~16% market share.
NEW YORK RANGERS quot;DIGGY
chicago bulls snapback white.
new york rangers jersey.
Vintage New Era La Kings Grey
New Era New York Knicks
iZac
Mar 28, 11:14 AM
Capacity bump now, full update September(ish)?
guzhogi
Aug 7, 06:39 PM
I don't know if this was said, but no dual grpahics cards in SLI/Crossfire mode? Many PeeCee motherboards support it. If the Mac Pro is supposed to be a workstation, why no SLI/Crossfire?
I think I'll wait until MWSF or whenever Apple releases 10.5 and see what's out (and to save up money). I checked to see how much it would cost to buy one w/ the specs I want (bluetooth & Airport, superdrive, GeForce 4500, smallest RAM & hard drive, 30" apple display) and it cost over $7,000. That's almost half a year's pay for me (I work in a public elementary school as their computer geek so the pay's lousy, but still fun).
I think I'll wait until MWSF or whenever Apple releases 10.5 and see what's out (and to save up money). I checked to see how much it would cost to buy one w/ the specs I want (bluetooth & Airport, superdrive, GeForce 4500, smallest RAM & hard drive, 30" apple display) and it cost over $7,000. That's almost half a year's pay for me (I work in a public elementary school as their computer geek so the pay's lousy, but still fun).
Multimedia
Jul 24, 02:31 AM
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?Your Applecare is transferable to the next owner not to your next Mac. I doubt your 17" top of the line MBP will be much different from the next version. But if they go Black Anodized Aluminum - as some of us think they will (including me) - cosmetically it will be very different. Best way to stay current is to sell on eve of or right at the point of the announcement. If you can swing it, buying the next one before selling what you have is the easiest way since you don't have to be without one.
I'm looking for:
1. Merom @ 2.33 GHz
2. User Upgradable HD like in the MacBook
3. 4GB RAM possible
4. Santa Rosa chipset (not due 'til Spring '07)
5. 17" like you have
6. Black Anodized Aluminum
7. 802.11n
8. 10-Gigabit Ethernet
10. Leopard Onboard
11. Refurbished
So I'm gonna only go refurb MacBook meanwhile if anything at all. I really spend most of my time on the Quad since it is so powerful. I'm multitasking something fierce lately. But I don't want 4 other cores. I want 8 with Leopard. So I'm pretty much in a holding pattern until all the above happen on the mobile front. I will especially NOT pull the trigger until they redesign to make upgrading the HD as easy as it is to do on the lowly MacBook.
I'm looking for:
1. Merom @ 2.33 GHz
2. User Upgradable HD like in the MacBook
3. 4GB RAM possible
4. Santa Rosa chipset (not due 'til Spring '07)
5. 17" like you have
6. Black Anodized Aluminum
7. 802.11n
8. 10-Gigabit Ethernet
10. Leopard Onboard
11. Refurbished
So I'm gonna only go refurb MacBook meanwhile if anything at all. I really spend most of my time on the Quad since it is so powerful. I'm multitasking something fierce lately. But I don't want 4 other cores. I want 8 with Leopard. So I'm pretty much in a holding pattern until all the above happen on the mobile front. I will especially NOT pull the trigger until they redesign to make upgrading the HD as easy as it is to do on the lowly MacBook.
boncellis
Jul 23, 06:35 PM
Personally, i'd love Apple releasing a intermediate desktop solution (between iMac and Mac Pro) sporting a not-yet-released 3.2GHz Conroe porcessor. That would be my dream machine BUT this is unlikely as its clocked higher than the top Woodcrest chip which tops out at 3.0GHz.
I might just get a windows box and dump linux on it....after all i already own a mac (PowerBook) with lots of life left. So if i miss Mac OS X i'll simply use my PB.
Other alternative would be to buy any conroe machine and just swap out the CPU with the 3.2 GHz chip launches. Too bad conroes will most likely be launching on iMacs though.
Don't do it man! You deserve better!
I might just get a windows box and dump linux on it....after all i already own a mac (PowerBook) with lots of life left. So if i miss Mac OS X i'll simply use my PB.
Other alternative would be to buy any conroe machine and just swap out the CPU with the 3.2 GHz chip launches. Too bad conroes will most likely be launching on iMacs though.
Don't do it man! You deserve better!
nagromme
Aug 7, 03:35 PM
Where are the wireless antennas on the new towers? No longer external, apparently?
LAME
• $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
——$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
And even without edu discount, still $1000 cheaper than a comparable Dell. Lame. ;)
I read a comment on Maccentral from someone saying they were going to wait for a "true" dual processor. What is not true about the Mac Pro configuration? Or did that poster not know what he was talking about?
It's two chips, each a dual... maybe the person meant they're waiting (as am I possibly) for "true quads," meaning 4 CPUs on one chip? That's expected (Kentsfield) by the end of the year. (But then after that, an even "truer" quad chip is expected :p ) Anyway, the benefit of 4-on-1-chip with Kentsfield may be mainly one of price. Which is enough to make me consider waiting, however.
There are many of you I want to beat with a spiky stick right now. Let's consolidate you into one bullet-point list of whiners:
Mitchell amp; Ness New York
new york yankees grey
Vintage
Vintage
Vintage-grizzly-industries-z-
Vintage Jacksonville Jaguars
Vintage
Vintage Arizona Diamondbacks
Vintage 1995 Final Four Retro
LAME
• $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
——$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
And even without edu discount, still $1000 cheaper than a comparable Dell. Lame. ;)
I read a comment on Maccentral from someone saying they were going to wait for a "true" dual processor. What is not true about the Mac Pro configuration? Or did that poster not know what he was talking about?
It's two chips, each a dual... maybe the person meant they're waiting (as am I possibly) for "true quads," meaning 4 CPUs on one chip? That's expected (Kentsfield) by the end of the year. (But then after that, an even "truer" quad chip is expected :p ) Anyway, the benefit of 4-on-1-chip with Kentsfield may be mainly one of price. Which is enough to make me consider waiting, however.
There are many of you I want to beat with a spiky stick right now. Let's consolidate you into one bullet-point list of whiners:
eawmp1
Apr 21, 03:06 PM
Hopefully the smaller form factor won't cause additional heat dissipation issues.
Raineer
Apr 18, 04:46 PM
They have patents but they HAVE to pursue infringers or they can lose the rights to the patents. That's why you see so many patent lawsuits. Unfortunately, that's just how the system works (in very basic terms).
8 pages and no quotes of this. That's all there is to this, folks...
8 pages and no quotes of this. That's all there is to this, folks...
MikhailT
May 7, 04:08 PM
Negative. It's not the iAds that make the prospect for MobileMe Free more plausible but rather the iPad.
iAd has nothing to do with it. iAds are premium priced (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703648304575212411500983040.html) Googles strategy is fairly cheap ads everywhere making them ubiquitious. Apple's iAd strategy is to add "emotion". Checking your calendar or email adding a contact is not a place where people want "emotive" ads.
What those of us who have a Mac/PC, iPhone and now iPad are finding is that sync across these devices is not good and makes buying software a pain. This is why it makes sense to "freemium" MobileMe. Give the sync away and other basic stuff that makes people want to use their Apple gear and when they want to graduate make the paid step up significant.
Haven't we learned yet that Apple doesn't follow the same path as other companies?
Don't negative a possibility, you have no proof that it can't happen, no matter how unlikely it is. You have no proof that iAds have nothing to do with this. We're all talking about possibilities here and MM going free is one of them.
Don't assume that iAds wouldn't lead to something else for Apple. Apple can do whatever they want if it'll earns them more money.
Yes, locking people in the Apple ecosystem earns them money, locking people in the same ecosystem with their own ads earns them even more money.
iAd has nothing to do with it. iAds are premium priced (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703648304575212411500983040.html) Googles strategy is fairly cheap ads everywhere making them ubiquitious. Apple's iAd strategy is to add "emotion". Checking your calendar or email adding a contact is not a place where people want "emotive" ads.
What those of us who have a Mac/PC, iPhone and now iPad are finding is that sync across these devices is not good and makes buying software a pain. This is why it makes sense to "freemium" MobileMe. Give the sync away and other basic stuff that makes people want to use their Apple gear and when they want to graduate make the paid step up significant.
Haven't we learned yet that Apple doesn't follow the same path as other companies?
Don't negative a possibility, you have no proof that it can't happen, no matter how unlikely it is. You have no proof that iAds have nothing to do with this. We're all talking about possibilities here and MM going free is one of them.
Don't assume that iAds wouldn't lead to something else for Apple. Apple can do whatever they want if it'll earns them more money.
Yes, locking people in the Apple ecosystem earns them money, locking people in the same ecosystem with their own ads earns them even more money.
miles01110
Apr 9, 05:06 PM
This was already discussed (and locked) over at Physicsforums.com.
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=488334
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=488334
SactoGuy18
Apr 16, 12:30 PM
Flat taxes are always very regressive, basically the reason why this is a bad idea, is that the people it effects are mostly the ones who can't afford it. and the rich will just sit on their money and not spend a lot and not benefit the economy.
I'd almost agree but if you look at the Forbes flat income tax plan, the plan has a very generous initial income exemption before the no-deductions flat income tax kicks in (somewhere between US$42,000 to US$44,000 for a family of two adults and two dependents). As such, that right there makes this plan progressive, since low-income households are no longer subject to income tax.
And best of all, with essentially all those complex deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. no longer in the tax code, it means income tax forms will be simple enough that the whole thing for most taxpayers will be not much more than a postcard! :D Just the savings in income tax compliance costs would mean potentially hundreds of billions of dollars now can be used for more productive purposes.
I'd almost agree but if you look at the Forbes flat income tax plan, the plan has a very generous initial income exemption before the no-deductions flat income tax kicks in (somewhere between US$42,000 to US$44,000 for a family of two adults and two dependents). As such, that right there makes this plan progressive, since low-income households are no longer subject to income tax.
And best of all, with essentially all those complex deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. no longer in the tax code, it means income tax forms will be simple enough that the whole thing for most taxpayers will be not much more than a postcard! :D Just the savings in income tax compliance costs would mean potentially hundreds of billions of dollars now can be used for more productive purposes.
miles01110
Apr 25, 08:51 AM
Yes. I'm sure that consolidated.db just appeared randomly and it's all a huge media conspiracy.
BornAgainMac
Aug 4, 05:02 AM
The reason. To do what they did with the mini drives on the iPod. Buy up as much inventory that Intel has the offer. Make Dell and all the rest wait until production of the chips can keep up with demand. Dell and the others will still ship a ton of products but with the slower Celerons and the equiv AMD.
I am curious of anyone does the volume of Core Duo products as Apple anyways.
I am curious of anyone does the volume of Core Duo products as Apple anyways.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
RebelScum
Apr 20, 11:54 AM
NO ONE holds the phone by the TINY little black glass area next to the screen
You're right. My Bumper is held on by Magic.
You're right. My Bumper is held on by Magic.
Popeye206
Apr 26, 03:27 PM
Makes sense. Android is really becoming the defacto alternative to iOS.
This is not about iOS vs Android. Both are doing well. It's the others who need to worry like RIM and MS. Where RIM was trying to beat the iPhone 2 years ago, now they have two platforms kicking their butt.
However, it's really not a fair comparison when you compare the iPhone vs Android. One is a phone and the other an OS. Wake me up when one single model of an Android based phone out sells the iPhone, then you can say Apple is in trouble.
This is not about iOS vs Android. Both are doing well. It's the others who need to worry like RIM and MS. Where RIM was trying to beat the iPhone 2 years ago, now they have two platforms kicking their butt.
However, it's really not a fair comparison when you compare the iPhone vs Android. One is a phone and the other an OS. Wake me up when one single model of an Android based phone out sells the iPhone, then you can say Apple is in trouble.
Warbrain
Mar 26, 10:25 PM
I highly doubt this is the case. The iPhone still leads the forefront for iOS devices and will receive iOS 5 when it is released. The only way this works is if the release of iPhone 5 is in September and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Tones2
Apr 26, 03:58 PM
What makes a product "Best" in its category is defined by different people differently. For some people "best" is a free phone because they can't afford anything else. Some people pour over the specs and select the "best".
For me, "best" is the phone that operates the most intuitively to my way of thinking. I want something that I don't need to refer back to the manual to use its features. My Android Incredible came with a 8" x 11", 73 page manual that I need to use to operate the phone... that fact speaks volumes to what separates the Android from the "best."
Oh come on. :rolleyes: If you can't figure out how to use an Android phone in less than a minute then you have some issues. It's the same friggin thing. The reason it comes with a manual is just a reference document. Apple doesn't include one because they are too cheap to put it in the package as a printout. If you want it, here it is. All 274 pages of it!
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/iphone_user_guide.pdf
Tony
For me, "best" is the phone that operates the most intuitively to my way of thinking. I want something that I don't need to refer back to the manual to use its features. My Android Incredible came with a 8" x 11", 73 page manual that I need to use to operate the phone... that fact speaks volumes to what separates the Android from the "best."
Oh come on. :rolleyes: If you can't figure out how to use an Android phone in less than a minute then you have some issues. It's the same friggin thing. The reason it comes with a manual is just a reference document. Apple doesn't include one because they are too cheap to put it in the package as a printout. If you want it, here it is. All 274 pages of it!
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/iphone_user_guide.pdf
Tony
richard.mac
Apr 9, 08:41 PM
i worked it out as 288 using BODMAS order, or PEDMAS as you americans call it :P
good idea to use Wolfram, that thing is pretty insane, and even Google can do it! step it up OS X calculator! :D
EDIT: Spotlight is giving me 288.
oh! looks like you just need to add an asterisk
good idea to use Wolfram, that thing is pretty insane, and even Google can do it! step it up OS X calculator! :D
EDIT: Spotlight is giving me 288.
oh! looks like you just need to add an asterisk
ValSalva
Apr 21, 08:01 PM
IMO the Mac Pro looks like an old granny these day's. It's in dire need of a refresh and looks totally out of line when compared to the rest of Apples range. And it's interesting to think that Apple is incapable of properly re-designing the computer because that's what you are saying effectively.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder :D With the quality control of Apple these days my confidence in them being able to design such a small case with such high powered processors without cooling problems is low.
It would save money with the need for less raw materials.
If there was 1/2 the amount of raw materials in the case can you see the price going down by any more than a few dollars? Isn't most of the cost of a Mac Pro the components?
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder :D With the quality control of Apple these days my confidence in them being able to design such a small case with such high powered processors without cooling problems is low.
It would save money with the need for less raw materials.
If there was 1/2 the amount of raw materials in the case can you see the price going down by any more than a few dollars? Isn't most of the cost of a Mac Pro the components?