dornoforpyros
Sep 18, 11:20 PM
I'm still hoping for another sneaky update like they just did with the minis & iMacs, come on Wednesday!
Tomaz
Aug 7, 07:08 PM
sadly I cant by any more letters to complete a better signature.!
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
Hellhammer
Apr 8, 09:01 AM
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
CPU isn't the only thing that changed. AMD 6750M (~30W) has higher TDP than NVidia GT 330M (~23W). I had to put ~ because their TDPs are not officially stated by AMD or NVidia so it's just based on previous GPUs and their TDPs. The point is that AMD 6750M has higher TDP.
There is also another thing. TDP is not the maximum power draw. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more than the actual TDP. While MPD is rarely achieved as it requires maximum voltage and temperature, it can (nearly) be achieved with heavy benchmarking applications.
For example, the combined TDP from quad core SB and AMD 6750M is 75W. If we use 20% extra as the MPD, that is 90W, just from the CPU and GPU! Of course those parts are not using 90W in that test because things like screen, HD, RAM etc need power too. As the MPD is usually in percents, it can explain why the difference is so big in watts.
40W sounds a bit too much to explain with MPD though. IIRC the GT 330M is underclocked but I'm not 100% sure. You have a valid point that the SBs may be using more power than their predecessors. To make this more accurate, we should compare them with C2Ds though ;)
I guess we will have to wait and see, but an ULV in 13" would be more than a disappointment.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
CPU isn't the only thing that changed. AMD 6750M (~30W) has higher TDP than NVidia GT 330M (~23W). I had to put ~ because their TDPs are not officially stated by AMD or NVidia so it's just based on previous GPUs and their TDPs. The point is that AMD 6750M has higher TDP.
There is also another thing. TDP is not the maximum power draw. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more than the actual TDP. While MPD is rarely achieved as it requires maximum voltage and temperature, it can (nearly) be achieved with heavy benchmarking applications.
For example, the combined TDP from quad core SB and AMD 6750M is 75W. If we use 20% extra as the MPD, that is 90W, just from the CPU and GPU! Of course those parts are not using 90W in that test because things like screen, HD, RAM etc need power too. As the MPD is usually in percents, it can explain why the difference is so big in watts.
40W sounds a bit too much to explain with MPD though. IIRC the GT 330M is underclocked but I'm not 100% sure. You have a valid point that the SBs may be using more power than their predecessors. To make this more accurate, we should compare them with C2Ds though ;)
I guess we will have to wait and see, but an ULV in 13" would be more than a disappointment.
aohus
Apr 19, 02:35 PM
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
Apple may face special problems because of admissions made by its chairman, John Sculley, in his 1987 book, ''Odyssey,'' a chronicle of his split with Apple's co-founder, Steven P. Jobs. ''Much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' he wrote. ''Indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed'' at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
Apple may face special problems because of admissions made by its chairman, John Sculley, in his 1987 book, ''Odyssey,'' a chronicle of his split with Apple's co-founder, Steven P. Jobs. ''Much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' he wrote. ''Indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed'' at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
Krevnik
Apr 27, 09:19 AM
Are you somehow trying to imply that because the credit card company knows so much about you that it is OK to keep that information unencrypted on your phone and backup on your computer?
All people are asking for is that personal information is kept encrypted and secured. No more. No less.
Apple provides the option of encrypting your backups. I suggest that anyone concerned about the safety of their personal information use this feature.
Can you trust anyone to completely cover their bases correctly on this issue? Their "meh" data might be your "personal" data. The only way to be certain that the backups are encrypted is to encrypt the whole backup. Doesn't lengthen the time it takes much either, and you get to set the password to use/access the backup.
Yes, Apple made a bone-head move here. But there's a lot more personal information floating in the backups. SMS message history, 3rd party app data, etc. Not all of it is encrypted, and some of it you probably want encrypted.
All people are asking for is that personal information is kept encrypted and secured. No more. No less.
Apple provides the option of encrypting your backups. I suggest that anyone concerned about the safety of their personal information use this feature.
Can you trust anyone to completely cover their bases correctly on this issue? Their "meh" data might be your "personal" data. The only way to be certain that the backups are encrypted is to encrypt the whole backup. Doesn't lengthen the time it takes much either, and you get to set the password to use/access the backup.
Yes, Apple made a bone-head move here. But there's a lot more personal information floating in the backups. SMS message history, 3rd party app data, etc. Not all of it is encrypted, and some of it you probably want encrypted.
seany916
Aug 27, 10:30 AM
Hecubus Pro,
I was distraught, and, as a huge gamer (not fat, just a video game fan )
That was funny! :D :p
I was distraught, and, as a huge gamer (not fat, just a video game fan )
That was funny! :D :p
Tom359
Apr 25, 04:14 PM
This is why we need a "loser pays" system.
This would get rid if the "I'm going to sue you so you pay money to go away becuase it's cheaper than paying the legal bills." Our system has been corrupted by these nuisance law suits.
This would get rid if the "I'm going to sue you so you pay money to go away becuase it's cheaper than paying the legal bills." Our system has been corrupted by these nuisance law suits.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
littleman23408
Nov 24, 09:03 AM
Anyone been playing the game yet? I saw on other forums, people got the game yesterday. People called stores around where they lived and some stores already had it out.
shawnce
Jul 27, 11:27 AM
Once again, I read it and read it well. The big deal about the G5 being in Mac was that the entire system was redesigned for better performance. Go read about the G5 system architecture if apple still has it up.
I think you are missing some important facts review ...
Intel announces Core 2 Duo processors, price cuts; AMD fires back (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060727-7364.html)
Into the Core: Intel's next-generation microarchitecture (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars)
Intel Core 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2)
List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors)
1) To put it simply the Core 2 family of processors can outperform existing G5s clock for clock and core for core (in many many tasks)... this has nothing to do with just increasing clock rates as you seem to imply in your prior post.
2) The chipset that supports the Core 2 (and Core) has generally greater capabilities (and fewer parts) then the chipset that supports the G5 Macs.
Compare iMac G5 (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/index.html)...
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/Art/050832001303_01.jpg
...to iMac Core Duo (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/iMac_06Jan/index.html)...
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/iMac_06Jan/Art/051183001314_01.jpg
...and the chipset in a PowerMac replacement will easily exceed the capabilities of the current PowerMacs.
I think you are missing some important facts review ...
Intel announces Core 2 Duo processors, price cuts; AMD fires back (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060727-7364.html)
Into the Core: Intel's next-generation microarchitecture (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars)
Intel Core 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2)
List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors)
1) To put it simply the Core 2 family of processors can outperform existing G5s clock for clock and core for core (in many many tasks)... this has nothing to do with just increasing clock rates as you seem to imply in your prior post.
2) The chipset that supports the Core 2 (and Core) has generally greater capabilities (and fewer parts) then the chipset that supports the G5 Macs.
Compare iMac G5 (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/index.html)...
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/Art/050832001303_01.jpg
...to iMac Core Duo (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/iMac_06Jan/index.html)...
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/iMac_06Jan/Art/051183001314_01.jpg
...and the chipset in a PowerMac replacement will easily exceed the capabilities of the current PowerMacs.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:24 AM
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location.
Yes, but
a) there is a difference between logging where you have been and storing the timestamp of when you have been there, I don't think Apple needs to or should have stored the timestamp
b) restricting the database to all locations you been to in the last seven days greatly diminishes the harm potential
Apple admitted (b), and said they would fix it. They might also fix (a).
Anybody who connects to a WiFi network automatically stores its SSID (unless you tell your iOS device to forget the network every time after your done). This alone is a record of your location (though again, the list of WiFi networks could be stripped of its access date, ie, issue (a)).
Yes, but
a) there is a difference between logging where you have been and storing the timestamp of when you have been there, I don't think Apple needs to or should have stored the timestamp
b) restricting the database to all locations you been to in the last seven days greatly diminishes the harm potential
Apple admitted (b), and said they would fix it. They might also fix (a).
Anybody who connects to a WiFi network automatically stores its SSID (unless you tell your iOS device to forget the network every time after your done). This alone is a record of your location (though again, the list of WiFi networks could be stripped of its access date, ie, issue (a)).
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 09:51 PM
I thought apple was supposed to be better at support than dell?
I have always exected Dell's support to be top notch and they have never let me down. However,I always paid for the upgraded 3 year support and I have never used the standard 1 year support. I also have always paid for Apple's 3 year AppleCare. In my opinion there is no comparison. Dell is better.
This is one reason I thought that previous surveys always rated Apple too high. The only explaination I could think of that made sense is that Apple has a tremendously loyal fan base. I think this fan base gives Apple rosey numbers and exagerates Apple's support response. Now that Apple marketshare has grown some, I think these users are seeing that it ain't so rosey red at Apple.
I have always exected Dell's support to be top notch and they have never let me down. However,I always paid for the upgraded 3 year support and I have never used the standard 1 year support. I also have always paid for Apple's 3 year AppleCare. In my opinion there is no comparison. Dell is better.
This is one reason I thought that previous surveys always rated Apple too high. The only explaination I could think of that made sense is that Apple has a tremendously loyal fan base. I think this fan base gives Apple rosey numbers and exagerates Apple's support response. Now that Apple marketshare has grown some, I think these users are seeing that it ain't so rosey red at Apple.
rezenclowd3
Dec 8, 12:25 PM
^^^ Again, from Sony and referenced in my post 152 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11513752&postcount=152)
Sony has since clarified to IGN how damage works in the game. "Damage occurs to cars right from the beginning," Sony said in a statement, "it is not "unlocked."
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I'm not arguing, just pointing out what Sony themselves have to say on the subject. Of course, as you progress further into the game, you are going to use more Premium racing models.
Sony has since clarified to IGN how damage works in the game. "Damage occurs to cars right from the beginning," Sony said in a statement, "it is not "unlocked."
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I'm not arguing, just pointing out what Sony themselves have to say on the subject. Of course, as you progress further into the game, you are going to use more Premium racing models.
FMJessica
Aug 25, 05:24 PM
A month ago I turned in my brand new 3 month old MacBook Pro to the Apple store because it had some sort of weird lines on the screen. They weren't anything I'd ever seen before, and when you had an application open over the lines, they dissapeared. Well, Apple send my computer back not fixed. So I had to send it out again, and this time the Apple store forgot to send it out. So eventually it got sent out and it was on hold for a part forever and yada yada yada three weeks later I'm super pissed.
I called Apple for the millionth time to complain, and finally they connected me to someone who set it up so that I could have a brand new, (and faster from the 1.83 GHz to the 2.0) MBP.
I had to complain a ton of times, and they still couldn't get my computer fixed in a fair amount of time. They told me everything was "expidited", even the parts they needed, but it was still taking almost a month.
I was so dissapointed in Apple! I'm a Mac-or-nothing kind of person, and this treatment was unacceptable. No wonder everyone's so pissed off! I'm glad it's not just me, but at the same time I hope they do something about it.
Anyway, my new computer is way better, and they also threw in 100$ off any iPod + my student discount, so we've made up.
BTW, I got my new new computer last weekend, so this was super recent.
Jessica
I called Apple for the millionth time to complain, and finally they connected me to someone who set it up so that I could have a brand new, (and faster from the 1.83 GHz to the 2.0) MBP.
I had to complain a ton of times, and they still couldn't get my computer fixed in a fair amount of time. They told me everything was "expidited", even the parts they needed, but it was still taking almost a month.
I was so dissapointed in Apple! I'm a Mac-or-nothing kind of person, and this treatment was unacceptable. No wonder everyone's so pissed off! I'm glad it's not just me, but at the same time I hope they do something about it.
Anyway, my new computer is way better, and they also threw in 100$ off any iPod + my student discount, so we've made up.
BTW, I got my new new computer last weekend, so this was super recent.
Jessica
NJRonbo
Jun 22, 05:59 PM
Whaaaat?
Is this a case where Radio Shack is charging
$50 more than Apple just because they can?
Is this a case where Radio Shack is charging
$50 more than Apple just because they can?
vnowarita
Apr 11, 02:48 PM
QFT
Apple may innovate and capture an audience at the start of the race, but boy do they sure tapper off in the long stretch and lose market share over time. They should really be pumping out multiple iPhone versions in 6 month increments...same for the iPad. Upgrades don't need to be major, but enough to keep people on the hook for their products.
+1
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!! They have the resources to do better than this. Unless total domination is not their focus.
Apple may innovate and capture an audience at the start of the race, but boy do they sure tapper off in the long stretch and lose market share over time. They should really be pumping out multiple iPhone versions in 6 month increments...same for the iPad. Upgrades don't need to be major, but enough to keep people on the hook for their products.
+1
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!! They have the resources to do better than this. Unless total domination is not their focus.
yg17
Apr 28, 04:48 PM
Because there was never a question of wither or not any of those men were born in the US, with Obama the past was always a bit hazy as to if he was actually born in Hawaii or thats just what his parents told him. Obviously he doesn’t remember BEING BORN in hawaii..his parents could have just told him that.
But now we have proof and its all over with there’s no need to be calling names about it.
It never was hazy, there was never any shred of evidence to suggest he was born elsewhere. The ONLY thing they had was the fact that his father was born in Kenya, but if having one parent from another country disqualifies you for being president, then that would disqualify a lot of past presidents, and disqualify Donald Trump.
But now we have proof and its all over with there’s no need to be calling names about it.
It never was hazy, there was never any shred of evidence to suggest he was born elsewhere. The ONLY thing they had was the fact that his father was born in Kenya, but if having one parent from another country disqualifies you for being president, then that would disqualify a lot of past presidents, and disqualify Donald Trump.
BackInTheSaddle
Aug 26, 10:00 AM
A lot of it is perception...if you don't get a defect, the product is great. But as the chairman of Matsushita (Panasonic) once observed about product quality, no matter how high your standards are, for the person getting a problem unit, your quality is 100% defective. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of it. There are more people buying Apple computers today than ever before, so there will be a much larger volume of problems.
I've had great experiences with Applecare so far, only one instance where I felt the person was reading his answers off a cue card. If I talk to an engineer, I get someone who knows the product, understands the problem I'm explaining and is actually able to solve the problem, in American English so far, thank God. Don't know what tech support is like for those folks outside of the USA and Canada, but Apple gets a big thumbs up from me. (That doesn't apply to .Mac however; Apple REALLY needs to improve support there.)
And for my money, Dell and Toshiba could learn a thing or two from Apple on how to provide tech support.
I've had great experiences with Applecare so far, only one instance where I felt the person was reading his answers off a cue card. If I talk to an engineer, I get someone who knows the product, understands the problem I'm explaining and is actually able to solve the problem, in American English so far, thank God. Don't know what tech support is like for those folks outside of the USA and Canada, but Apple gets a big thumbs up from me. (That doesn't apply to .Mac however; Apple REALLY needs to improve support there.)
And for my money, Dell and Toshiba could learn a thing or two from Apple on how to provide tech support.
Shagrat
Sep 13, 07:56 AM
and this got negative votes because...??????????
Yeesh!
Yeesh!
NAG
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
Chundles
Aug 11, 10:33 AM
Two stories so far on the front page and we have:
"chineese"
"upcomming"
Looks like arn's keyboard is stickiiing. :D
iPhone = bad idea and difficult to implement beyond the USA.
"chineese"
"upcomming"
Looks like arn's keyboard is stickiiing. :D
iPhone = bad idea and difficult to implement beyond the USA.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 01:57 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Hardly. Samsung would have been fine had they stuck to that original theme, rather than move into Apple's house as a squatter with a subsequent model:
http://www.tmobileniles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Hardly. Samsung would have been fine had they stuck to that original theme, rather than move into Apple's house as a squatter with a subsequent model:
http://www.tmobileniles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg
Rot'nApple
Apr 8, 06:56 AM
Quota? Are these guys idiots?
Best Buy isn't the only place to buy these... I've thought through the various marketing gimmicks, and really none apply here. Why would they do this...
Maybe BB spreading out what inventory it does receive so as to give other potential customers coming the next day and the day after that and the day after that a possible opportunity to actually get one if they are lucky to be there and BB hadn't sold their quota for the day versus nope don't have any don't know when next shipment coming in.
Which is what I was told on several occasions from the Apple rep at BB. It was her suggestion when the store last received iPads to check online that same day for inventory status. Sure enough, week later BB was showing a pitiful quantity of only a few models, but I was able to purchase from BB my iPad sooner than some of the people griping on these message boards that their online order placed weeks ago still hadn't been filled. Apple quota anyone?
It's one thing to intro a product and not know whether it will be a hit or not and you wouldn't want a glut of inventory, but haven't these inventory shortage issues, until things settle out, been seen with the iPhone 4! 4 not 1...
Not excusing BB but just a thought to the question why would BB put a quota on the limited availability iPad 2.
Best Buy isn't the only place to buy these... I've thought through the various marketing gimmicks, and really none apply here. Why would they do this...
Maybe BB spreading out what inventory it does receive so as to give other potential customers coming the next day and the day after that and the day after that a possible opportunity to actually get one if they are lucky to be there and BB hadn't sold their quota for the day versus nope don't have any don't know when next shipment coming in.
Which is what I was told on several occasions from the Apple rep at BB. It was her suggestion when the store last received iPads to check online that same day for inventory status. Sure enough, week later BB was showing a pitiful quantity of only a few models, but I was able to purchase from BB my iPad sooner than some of the people griping on these message boards that their online order placed weeks ago still hadn't been filled. Apple quota anyone?
It's one thing to intro a product and not know whether it will be a hit or not and you wouldn't want a glut of inventory, but haven't these inventory shortage issues, until things settle out, been seen with the iPhone 4! 4 not 1...
Not excusing BB but just a thought to the question why would BB put a quota on the limited availability iPad 2.
Multimedia
Aug 17, 12:01 PM
when cs 3 comes out, which will be sometime in the spring of 2007 according to macworld magazine, the mac pro will be "hands down" the best machine across the board on "all" benchmarks concerning adobe software
let's hope we get cs 3 sooner rather than later in 2007 because i would hate to wait until late march
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)
but for now, apple has the best pro desktop machine dollar for dollar that i have seen and with cs 3 next year, it will be a designer's dream machine better than anything out there in its price range...at least for a few months ;)I think Apple will add a Dual Clovertown processor option to the Mac Pro BTO page as soon as they can get them. I'm thinking it will be about a $1k option - Minus Two Woodcrests Plus Two Clovertowns = about $1k I thiink.Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, Kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.I'll settle for Dual Clovertown or perhaps a Quad Tigerton - if it's only $2k more - when Leopard ships on board next Spring. :)
So I'm thinking the Dual Clovertown OctoCore will cost about $4,000 plus ram and the Sixteen Core Tigerton Setup about $6,000 plus ram. Is that a fair guess?
let's hope we get cs 3 sooner rather than later in 2007 because i would hate to wait until late march
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)
but for now, apple has the best pro desktop machine dollar for dollar that i have seen and with cs 3 next year, it will be a designer's dream machine better than anything out there in its price range...at least for a few months ;)I think Apple will add a Dual Clovertown processor option to the Mac Pro BTO page as soon as they can get them. I'm thinking it will be about a $1k option - Minus Two Woodcrests Plus Two Clovertowns = about $1k I thiink.Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, Kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.I'll settle for Dual Clovertown or perhaps a Quad Tigerton - if it's only $2k more - when Leopard ships on board next Spring. :)
So I'm thinking the Dual Clovertown OctoCore will cost about $4,000 plus ram and the Sixteen Core Tigerton Setup about $6,000 plus ram. Is that a fair guess?